SOME   PROBABLE   EFFECTS 

OF    THE 

EXEMPTION   OF    IMPROVEMENTS 
FROM    TAXATION 

IN    THE    CITY    OF    NEW   YORK 


A   REPORT 

PREPARED  FOR 

THE  COMMITTEE  ON   TAXATION 

OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


BY 

ROBERT  MURRAY  HAIG,   Ph.D. 

Instructor  in  Economics 

Columbia  University 


NEW  YORK 
1915 


^< 


V^^^c^v^ 


-^ 


iM-C  0 


PRESS  OF 

CLARENCES.  NATHAN,  INC., 

NEW  YORK. 


4651-15-2,000  (N) 


COMMITTEE  ON  TAXATION  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


Appointed  April  10,  1914 
BY   HONORABLE  JOHN   PURROY   MITCHEL,   MAYOR 


ALFRED   E. 


MARLING, 

Chairman 


FREDERIC  C.  HOWE, 

Secretary 


EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN, 
Chairman,  Executive  Committee 


Robert  S.  Binkerd 
George  Cromwell* 
Frank  Harvey  Field 
Joseph  N.  Francolini 
John  J.  Halleran 
Hamilton  Holt 
Jeremiah  W.  Jenks 
Ardolph  L.  Kline 
Frederick  C.  Leubuscher 
Walter  Lindner 
Cyrus  C.  Miller 


George  V.  Mullan 
Louis  Heaton  Pink 
Lawson  Purdy 
David  Rumsey 
Oscar  R.  Seitz 
Frederic  B.  Shipley 
Robert  E.  Simon 
Franklin  S.  Tomlin 
Charles  T,  White 
Delos  F.  Wilcox 
Collin  H.  Woodward 


LAURENCE  ARNOLD 


Resigned  January  12,  1915. 


TANZER, 

Executive  Secretary. 


^< 


v^^^<^^ 


-^u 


465!-15-2,000  (N) 


COMMITTEE  ON  TAXATION  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK 


Appointed  April  10,  1914 
BY   HONORABLE  JOHN   PURROY   MITCHEL,   MAYOR 


ALFRED  E.  MARLING, 

Chairman 


FREDERIC  C.  HOWE, 

Secretary 


EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN, 

Chairman,  Executive  Committee 


Robert  S.  Binkerd 
George  Cromwell* 
Frank  Harvey  Field 
Joseph  N.  Francolini 
John  J.  Halleran 
Hamilton  Holt 
Jeremiah  W.  Jenks 
Ardolph  L.  Kline 
Frederick  C.  Leubuscher 
Walter  Lindner 
Cyrus  C.  Miller 


George  V.  Mullan 
Louis  Heaton  Pink 
Lawson  Purdy 
David  Rumsey 
Oscar  R.  Seitz 
Frederic  B.  Shipley 
Robert  E.  Simon 
Franklin  S.  Tomlin 
Charles  T.  White 
Delos  F.  Wilcox 
Collin  H.  Woodward 


LAURENCE  ARNOLD   TANZER, 

Executive  Secretary. 


Resigned  January  12,  1915. 


PREFACE 

This  study  is,  in  the  main,  an  attempt  to  secure  from  an  analysis  of 
the  assessment  rolls  for  1914  as  much  information  as  possible  about  the 
probable  effects  of  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax  rate  on 
buildings.  It  originated  in  a  request  by  Professor  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman, 
Chairman  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Committee  on  Taxation  of 
the  City  of  New  York,  made  to  Mr.  Lawson  Purdy,  President  of  the 
Commissioners  of  Taxes  and  Assessments,  for  data  illustrating  the 
effects  of  the  adoption  of  such  a  plan  upon  the  taxes  payable  by  the 
owners  of  high  buildings,  tenements  and  single-family  dwellings.  In 
selecting  the  samples  which  should  be  used  for  this  purpose  the  advice 
of  Mr.  Walter  Lindner  and  Mr.  Robert  E.  Simon,  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Taxation,  was  secured,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  data  pre- 
sented in  five  of  the  Manhattan  sections  (the  "Sky-Scraper"  Section, 
the  Riverside  Drive  Section,  the  Fifth  Avenue  Section,  the  Section  of 
Side  Streets  East  of  Fifth  Avenue  and  the  Mount  Morris  Park  Section). 
In  selecting  the  samples. representative  of  conditions  in  the  boroughs 
other  than  Manhattan,  the  following  method  was  followed.  The  re- 
lationship of  building  value  to  the  value  of  improved  land  in  the  given 
assessment  section  was  ascertained.  Then,  with  the  aid  of  the  insur- 
ance atlas,  a  homogeneous  group  of  parcels  was  sought,  whose  relation- 
ship of  building  to  land  value  approximated  that  of  the  assessment  sec- 
tion in  which  it  was  located.  This  group  was  made  the  sample  from 
that  section.  All  of  the  data  thus  gathered  were  turned  over  to  the 
writer  for  analysis  and  comment. 

During  the  course  of  the  study  it  seemed  desirable,  in  order  to  make 
the  investigation  even  more  representative  and  to  furnish  information  in 
regard  to  the  effects  in  particular  sections  in  which  various  members 
of  the  committee  were  especially  interested,  to  add  several  new  Man- 
hattan samples — the  three  tenement  sections,  the  two  apartment  house 
sections  and  four  new  single-family  dwelling  sections.  As  a  result,  the 
criticism  may  be  urged  that  the  data  presented  is  not  well  balanced,  too 
much  attention  being  devoted  to  the  effects  upon  single-family  houses  in 
Manhattan.  But  this  should  mislead  no  one  for  definite  statements  are 
made  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  this  element. 

The  writer  desires  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  Mr.  Purdy 
not  only  for  his  aid  in  supervising  the  preparation  of  the  assessment  data 
but  also  for  his  unfailing  kindness  in  answering  the  numberless  queries 
which   inevitably    arise    in    prosecuting   an    investigation    of   this    type. 


Thanks  are  also  due  to  Mr.  Benjamin  C.  Marsh  for  exact  information 
furnished  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  proposed  plan. 

Finally  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  is  with  some  trepidation  that 
the  study  is  submitted,  because  of  the  lack  of  the  opportunity  for  ade- 
quate checking.  The  mass  of  statistics  submitted  for  analysis  and  the 
very  limited  time  available  made  it  necessary  to  delegate  a  substantial 
share  of  the  arithmetical  calculations.  Doubtless  errors  will  be  found 
but  the  writer  bespeaks  the  indulgence  of  his  critics  on  the  ground  of 
the  speed  which  was  demanded  both  in  writing  and  in  printing. 

Robert  Murray  Haig. 
New  York  City, 
September  8,  1915. 


OUTLINE   AND   TABLE   OF   CONTENTS 


Page 

L     Introduction 11 

A.  The  proposal 11 

B.  Possible  effects  of  the  proposed  law  upon  the  distribution  of  tax  burdens. .  12 

C.  Method  of  ascertaining  the  redistribution  of  the  tax  burdens. 13 

(1)  The  significance  of  the  ratio  between  land  values  and  improvement 

values 13 

(2)  The  district  for  which  the  standard  ratios  should  be  calculated ....  14 

D.  The  standard  ratios 15 

II.     Effects  in  the  city  as  a  whole  under  certain  assumed  conditions 18 

A.  Effects  upon  the  tax  burdens  of  the  boroughs 18 

(1)  Increases  and  decreases 18 

(2)  The  assessed  values 20 

(3)  The  tax  rates 20 

(4)  The  amounts  of  taxes  payable 22 

B.  Effects  upon  the  tax  burden  of  various  types  of  property 24 

C.  Summary 24 

III.  Effects  in  Manhattan  under  certain  assumed  conditions 26 

A.  Tax  rates 26 

B.  Distribution  of  burden  among  the  elements  of  the  tax  base 27 

C.  Effects  in  the  various  assessment  sections  of  the  borough 27 

D.  Effects  in  selected  sections  of  the  borough 31 

(1)  Sky-scraper  section 31 

(2)  Tenement  sections 35 

(a)  Upper  east  side  section 35 

(b)  Rivington  Street  section 37 

(c)  Houston  Street  section 38 

(3)  Apartment  sections 40 

(a)  Elevator  apartment  section 40 

(b)  Walk-up  apartment  section 41 

(4)  Sections  of  single  family  houses 42 

(a)  Riverside  Drive  section 42 

(b)  Fifth  Avenue  section 44 

(c)  Section  of  side  streets  east  of  Fifth  Avenue 46 

(d)  Section  of  side  streets  off  Riverside  Drive 50 

(e)  Section  of  side  streets  west  of  Central  Park 53 

(f)  Section  of  side  streets  east  of  Lexington  Avenue 54 

(g)  Section  in  Washington  Square  district 56 

(h)   Mount  Morris  Park  section 57 

E.  Summary 60 

IV.  Effects  in  the  Bronx  under  certain  assumed  conditions 61 

A.  Tax  rates 61 

B.  Distribution  of  the  burden  among  the  elements  in  the  tax  base 62 

C.  Effects  in  the  various  assessment  sections  of  the  borough 62 

D.  Effects  in  selected  sections  of  the  borough 66 

(1)  Sample  district  from  Assessment  Section  Nine 66 

(2)  "             "           "               "                 "       Ten 68 

(3)  "             "           "               "                 "       Eleven 70 

(4)  "             "           "               "                 "       Twelve 72 

(5)  "             "           "               "                 "       Fifteen 73 

(6)  "             "           "               "                 "       Seventeen 75 

E.  Summary 77 


Page 

V.     Effects  in  Brooklyn  under  certain  assumed  conditions 78 

A.  Tax  rates 78 

B.  Distribution  of  the  burden  among  the  elements  in  the  tax  base 79 

C.  Effects  in  the  various  assessment  sections  of  the  borough 79 

D.  Effects  in  selected  sections  of  the  borough. 84 

(1)  Sample  district  from  Assessment  Section  Five 84 

(2)  "             "           "              "                 "       Six 85 

(3)  "            "           "              "                 "       Eight 87 

(4)  "            "           "              "                 "       Twelve 88 

(5)  "             "           "              "                "       Sixteen 90 

(6)  "             "           "               "                 "       Nineteen 91 

(7)  "             "           "               "                 "       Twenty 93 

(8)  "             "           "               "                 "       Twenty-three 94 

E.  Summary 96 

VI.     Effects  in  Queens  under  certain  assumed  conditions 97 

A.  Tax  rates 97 

B.  Distribution  of  the  burden  among  the  elements  in  the  tax  base 98 

C.  Effects  in  the  various  assessment  sections  of  the  borough 98 

D.  Effects  in  selected  sections  of  the  borough 101 

(1)  Sample  district  from  Ward  One 101 

(2)  "  "  "         "       Two 102 

(3)  "  "  "         "       Three 103 

(4)  "  "  "         "       Four 105 

(5)  "  "  "         "       Five 106 

E.  Summary 108 

VII.     Effects  in  Richmond  under  certain  assumed  conditions 109 

A.  Tax  rates 109 

B.  Distribution  of  the  burden  among  the  elements  in  the  tax  base 110 

C.  Effects  in  the  various  assessment  sections  of  the  borough 110 

D.  Effects  in  selected  sections  of  the  borough 113 

(1)  Sample  district  from  Ward  One 113 

(2)  "  "  "         "       Two 114 

(3)  "  "  "         "       Three 116 

(4)  "  "  "         "       Four 117 

(5)  "  "  "         "       Five 119 

E.  Summary 120 

VIII.     Various  disturbing  factors  taken  into  account 121 

IX.     The  significance  of  the  foregoing  data  for  certain  economic  classes  in  the  com- 
munity     124 

A.  Introductory 124 

(1)  The  necessity  of  considering  the  incidence  of  the  tax 124 

(2)  The  incidence  of  the  real  estate  tax 124 

B.  Significance  for  real  estate  owners 128 

(1)  Owners  who  occupy  their  own  property 129 

(2)  Owners  who  rent  their  property 132 

(3)  Owners  of  vacant  land 132 

C.  Significance  for  renters 133 

D.  Significance  for  prospective  real  estate  owners 134 


APPENDIX 


Page 

Detailed  information  concerning  the  eflfects  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings 

upon  the  taxes  payable  by  owners  of  parcels  in  the  various  selected  sections ....  137 

I,     Manhattan 138 

Sky-scraper  section 138 

Upper  east-side  tenement  section 145 

Rivington  Street  section 148 

Houston  Street  section 151 

Elevator  apartment  section 153 

Walk-up  apartment  section 154 

Riverside  Drive  section 155 

Fifth  Avenue  section 156 

Section  of  side  streets  east  of  Fifth  Avenue 159 

Section  of  side  streets  off  Riverside  Drive 169 

Section  of  side  streets  west  of  Central  Park 173 

Section  of  side  streets  east  of  Lexington  Avenue 178 

Section  in  Washington  Square  district 181 

Mount  Morris  Park  section 183 

11.     The  Bronx 190 

Sample  district  from  Assessment  Section  Nine 190 

"       Ten 194 

Eleven 196 

Twelve 199 

Fifteen 201 

"           "             "               "               "       Seventeen 203 


III.     Brooklyn 205 

Sample  district  from  Assessment  Section  Five 205 

Six 208 

Eight 211 

Twelve 214 

Sixteen 216 

Nineteen 220 

Twenty 224 

Twenty-three 227 


IV.     Queens 229 

Sample  district  from  Ward  One 229 

"     Two 231 

*     Three 234 

"       ""  "         "     Four 236 

"     Five 240 


Richmond 243 

Sample  district  from  Ward  One 243 

"     Two 246 

"     Three 248 

"     Four 251 

"     Five 252 


I.  INTRODUCTION 

The  proposal  to  reduce  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  involves  a  differen- 
tiation among  the  elements  of  the  base  upon  which  the  taxes  are  levied. 
The  adoption  of  the  proposal  would  increase  the  taxes  of  some  and 
decrease  those  of  others.  The  problem  is  to  determine  which  sections 
of  the  city,  which  types  of  property  and  which  economic  classes  vv^ould 
pay  greater  taxes  and  which  smaller  in  consequence  of  the  adoption  of 
the  plan. 

A.     THE  PROPOSAL 

The  manner  in  which  it  is  proposed  to  reduce  the  tax  rate  on  im- 
provements is  stated  in  this  language  in  the  bill  as  introduced  in  the 
legislature  in  1915 : 

"The  board  of  aldermen  shall,  for  the  year  nineteen  hundred 
and  sixteen,  in  fixing  the  rate  of  taxation  on  real  estate  in  the  City 
of  New  York,  exclusive  of  special  franchises,  so  apportion  the  rate 
that  the  rate  on  the  difference  between  the  value  of  such  real  estate, 
with  its  improvements,  and  the  vafue  of  such  real  estate  wholly 
unimproved,  assessed  and  provided  for  in  section  eight  hun- 
dred and  eighty-nine  of  this  act,  shall  be  ninety  per  centum  of  the 
rate  on  the  vq^lue  of  such  real  estate  wholly  unimproved.  Every 
year  subsequent  to  nineteen  hundred  and  sixteen  the  rate  on  the 
difference  between  the  value  of  such  real  estate  with  its  improve- 
ments and  the  value  of  such  real  estate  wholly  unimproved  shall  be 
still  further  reduced  ten  per  centum  of  the  rate  on  the  value  of  such 
real  estate  wholly  unimproved,  for  eight  consecutive  years,  and*  in 
the  ninth  year  it  shall  be  reduced  nine  per  centum  of  the  rate  on 
the  value  of  such  real  estate  wholly  unimproved,  until  the  rate  on 
the  difference  between  the  value  of  such  real  estate  with  its  improve- 
ments, and  the  value  of  such  real  estate  wholly  unimproved,  shall 
be  one  per  centum  of  the  rate  on  the  value  of  such  real  estate  wholly 
unimproved ;  and  thereafter  the  board  of  aldermen  shall  so  appor- 
tion the  rate  of  taxation  that  the  rate  on  the  difference  between  the 
value  of  such  real  estate  with  its  improvements  and  the  value  of  such 
real  estate  wholly  unimproved,  shall  be  one  per  centum  of  the  rate 
on  the  value  of  such  real  estate  wholly  unimproved."* 
It  will  be  noted  that  this  latest  proposal  practically  eliminates  the  tax 
on  buildings  in  ten  years.  The  bills  introduced  in  the  years  prior  to  1915 
contemplated  the  decrease  of  the  rate  "on  buildings  to  one-half  that  on  land 
by  a  series  of  five  annual  reductions  of  ten  per  cent.  each. 

The  proposed  law,  as  interpreted  by  its  sponsors,  divides  the  tax 
base  into  three  groups:   in   the  first  group   are  personal  property  and 

*  Senate  Bill,  No.  1336,  introduced  by  Mr.  Heffernan. 

11 


special  franchises,  in  the  second,  improvements  (including  the  improve- 
ments of  "corporations"*)  and  in  the  third,  land  value  (including  land 
value  of  corporations!) .  At  present  the  tax  base  consists  of  five  items: 
ordinary  land  value,  improvements,  personal  property,  special  fran- 
chises and  real  estate  of  corporations.  It  is  the  intent  of  the  bill  to 
increase  the  tax  on  group  three  (land)  and  decrease  the  tax  on  group 
two  (improvements).  The  tax  on  group  one  (personal  property  and 
special  franchises)  is  expected  to  remain  constant.  Both  improvements 
and  land  are  to  be  assessed  at  their  full  value  and  the  share  of  the  total 
burden  which  would  fall  to  group  two  and  group  three  is  to  be  estimated. 
Then  a  calculation  is  to  be  made  of  the  rates  to  be  levied  against  groups 
two  and  three  in  order  to  produce  the  apportioned  sum,  the  rate  on 
improvements  (group  two)  becoming  progressively  less  than  the  rate 
on  group  three  (land  value)  until  finally  eliminated  except  for  a  nominal 
figure.  This  figure,  one  per  cent.,  is  retained  as  a  part  of  the  tax  base 
in  order  that  the  borrowing  power  of  the  city  may  not  be  afifected  and 
in  order  to  avoid  constitutional  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  adoption  of  a 
plan  to  exempt  improvements  entirely. 

B.     POSSIBLE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  PROPOSED  LAW  UPON  THE 
DISTRIBUTION  OF  TAX  BURDENS 

If  the  tax  base  were  homogeneous,  consisting  of  one  kind  of  prop- 
erty only,  or  if  each  element  in  the  base  were  evenly  distributed  among 
all  the  taxpayers  in  proportion  to  each,  person's 'total  holdings — each 
person  owning  part  of  each  item  in  the  tax  base  in  exactly  equal  pro- 
portions— the  adoption  of  "the  proposed  plan  would  cause  no  change  in 
the  amounts  paid  as  taxes  by  the*  individuals.  There  might  be  serious 
effects  upon  values,  it  is  true,  but  each  person's  values  would  be  affected 
in  the  same  proportion  and  no  discrimination  between  individuals  would 
result.  The  principle  may  be  illustrated  by  an  arithmetical  example. 
Suppose  there  were  but  three  owners  of  taxable  property  in  the  city, 
A,  B  and  C,  and  that  their  holdings  were  distributed  as  follows : 

ABC 

Ordinary  land  value $200,000        .$1,000,000         $5,000 

Improvements 200,000  1,000,000  5,000 

Personal  property 20,000  100,000  500 

Real  estate  of  corporations 20,000  100,000  500 

Special  franchises 20,000  100,000  500 

$460,000        $2,300,000       $11,500 
In  this  case,  in  spite  of  the  great  differences  in  the  size  of  the  total 
holdings,  the  rate  on  any  item  in  the  tax  base  could  be  increased  or  de- 
creased   without   varying   the    amount    which    each    individual    would   be 
called  upon  to  pay.     Even  if  all  the  taxes  were  levied  on  land,  the  tax 

*The  "corporations"  referred  to  are  for  the  most  part  public  utility  companies,  but  some  mis- 
cellaneous  property  is  included. 

t  This  plan,  it  should  be  stated,  is  not  considered  final  and  unamendable.  There  are  many 
among  the  supporters  of  the  plan  who  feel  that  special  franchises  should  be  untaxed  also  and  the 
charges  of  the  public  utilities  correspondingly  reduced. 

12 


bill  of  each  individual  would  remain  the  same.  It  is  true  that  the  value 
of  the  land  might  be  greatly  depreciated,  in  consequence  of  the  heavy- 
levy  on  the  income  from  that  source  but  each  man's  land  would  depre- 
ciate in  the  same  proportion  so  that  no  inequality  would  result  between 
individuals. 

Such  a  condition  as  that  described  in  the  illustration  is  very  different 
from  that  which  actually  obtains  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Individuals 
own  taxable  property  in  infinitely  varying  proportions.  Complete  even- 
ness in  the  distribution  of  ownership  is  almost  an  impossibility  in  a 
growing  city.  It  never  existed  in  any  city  after  the  first  building  was 
constructed  and  never  can  be  more  than  approximated  thereafter.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  the  proposed  change  will  result  in  a  redistribution 
of  tax  burdens. 

C.     METHOD  OF  ASCERTAINING  THE  REDISTRIBUTION   OF 
THE  TAX  BURDENS 

(1).     The  Significance  of  the  Ratio  Betzveen  Land  Values  and 
Improvement  Values 

This  question  then  arises :  What  is  the  dividing  line  between  the  tax- 
payers whose  bills  would  increase  and  the  taxpayers  whose  bills  would 
decrease  in  consequence  of  the  addption  of  the  proposal? 

It  has  been/  stated  by  some  that  to  take  the  tax  ofif  buildings  will 
benefit  those  individuals  whose  buildings  are  worth  more  than  their  land 
and  will  increase  the  taxes  of  those  ^whose  land  is.  assessed  for  more 
than  the  buildings.  This  is  evidently  based  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  relationship,  of  the  value  of  building^  to  the  value  of  land  is  one  of 
equality,  lots  and  houses  being  approximately  equal  in  value.  It  is  true 
that  this  relationship  is  present  in  'a  remarkably  l^rge  number  of  cases. 
It  has  even  been  formally  stated  as  a  principle  that  the' ideal  improve- 
ment is  one  which  equals  -in  cost  the  value  of  the  lafid  on  which  it 
stands.*  However,  this  is  far  from  universal  and  it  is  not  the  relation- 
ship between  the  value  of  land  and  improvements  in  the  City  of  New 
York  at  present. 

Others  have  said  that  the  ratio  between  total  land  values  and 
total  improvement  values,  be  the  terras  equal  or  unequal,  is  the  ratio 
which  is  of  significance  in  this  connection.f  This  is  true  if  land  and 
improvements  are  the  only  elements  in  the  tax  base.  When  there  are 
other  elements  in  the  tax  base,  the  significant  ratio  is  that  between 
the  total  value  of  those  elements  on  which  the  rate  is  reduced  and  the 
total  value  of  those  elements  on  which  the  rate  is  increased.  In  New 
York,  three  other  items  are  present:  personal  property,  real  estate  of 
corporations,  and  special  franchises.  But  according  to  the  terms  of  the 
bill  as  introduced  in  1915  and  in  the  preceding  years,  special  franchises 

*  Richard  M.  Hurd,  Principles  of  City  Land  Values  (N.  Y.,  1903),  p.  97. 

t  E.  g.,  Edward  Polak,  Reduction  of  Tax  on  Buildings  in  the  City  of  New  York,  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy,   March,   1915,  p.   186,  et  seq. 

13 


are  grouped  with  personal  property  and  the  rate  on  these  two  classes 
of  property  is  expected  neither  to  increase  nor  decrease.  If  the  higher 
rate  on  land  values  should  result  in  their  depreciation,  however,  this 
would  mean  a  smaller  total  base,  and  a  higher  rate  of  taxation  on  per- 
sonal property  and  special  franchises.  For  the  present,  nevertheless,  let  it 
be  assumed  that  the  values  of  land  would  not  be  diminished  by  virtue  of 
the  higher  rate  of  the  tax,  the  stimulating  influence  upon  building  and 
business  activity  being  sufficient  to  counterbalance  the  depressing  effect 
of  the  higher  tax  rate.  In  this  case  these  two  items,  personal  property 
and  special  franchises,  might  be  eliminated  from  consideration.  They 
form  a  separate  part  of  the  tax  base,  unaffected  by  the  manipulations  in 
the  rates  on  the  other  items.  The  last  element  of  the  base,  real  estate 
of  corporations,  would  be  divided  into  its  component  parts,  land  and 
improvements,  and  added  to  the  items  of  ordinary  land  value  and  im- 
provements. It  is  evident  that  the  resulting  totals  should  be  used  in 
calculating  standard  relationship. 

The  first  step,  then,  is  to  determine  the  standard  ratio.  Any  piece  of 
property  in  which  the  value  of  the  building  is  greater  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  the  land  than  is  the  case  in  the  general  ratio  arrived  at  would 
pay  a  smaller  tax  and  any  piece  of  property  in  which  the  land  was  a 
larger  factor  than  in  the  general  ratio  would  pay  a  greater  tax  than 
before. 

(2).     The  District  for  which  the  Standard  Ratios  Should  be  Calcidated 

But  the  problem  is  further  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the  tax  rates 
finally  extended  include  rates  levied  for  county  purposes  as  well  as 
for  general  city  purposes.*  There  are  five  counties  within  the  limits 
of  the  city  whose  expenses  are  met  by  a  tax  on  the  property  which  lies 
in  their  own  boundaries.  This  results  in  a  variation  in  the  tax  rates 
from  county  to  county.  Such  being  the  situation,  the  question  arises 
as  to  the  jurisdiction  for  which  the  standard  ratios  between  land  and 
buildings  should  be  calculated.  Is  the  relation  between  land  and 
improvements  in  the  entire  city  the  significant  relation  or  is  the  relation 
in  the  county  the  proper  one  to  be  used  in  the  comparisons?  This  is  a 
matter  of  some  importance  for  the  proportion  of  land  value  to  building 
value  varies  widely  among  the  counties.f 

The  plan  under  consideration  contemplates  no  apportionment  of 
general  expenses  among  the  counties  on  the  full  value  basis,  but  rather 
a  change  in  the  general  city  rate.     This  involves  a  redistribution  of  the 

•  In  those  years  when  there  is  a  direct  state  tax,  the  amount  apportioned  to  the  city  is  treated 
as  a  general  city  charge.  It  is,  therefore,  unnecessary  to  treat  the  state  tax  separately  for  the 
purposes  of  this  study. 

t  If  the  general  city  expenses  were  to  be  apportioned  among  the  counties  on  the  basis  of 
assessed  valuations,  buildings  being  included  at  their  full  value,  and  the  discrimination  between  land 
and  buildings  being  made  in  calculating  the  rate  for  each  county,  the  result  would  be  much  greater 
differences  between  counties  in  the  rates  than  at  present.  In  this  case  the  general  ratios  between 
land  and  buildings  for  the  counties  would  be  the  factors  of  significance  and  the  standard  for  com- 
parison in   determining   whose  taxes  would  be  increased   and   decreased. 

14 


burden  of  general  city  taxes  among  the  boroughs  but  it  insures  that  the 
tax  for  general  city  purposes  shall  be  levied  on  each  class  of  property  at 
a  uniform  rate  over  the  city.    This  means  that  so  far  as  the  general  city 
taxes  are  concerned,  the  significant  relationship  is  that  of  land  values^ 
to  building  values  in  the  city  at  large. 

The  county  taxes,  being  raised  from  the  property  within  the  county, 
would  be  redistributed  in  a  different  manner.  The  significant  ratio  here 
is  that  between  land  and  buildings  within  the  county  limits. 

To  determine,  therefore,  whether  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plan 
to  untax  buildings  will  increase  or  decrease  the  taxes  on  a  particular 
parcel  of  real  estate,  it  is  necessary  to  take  into  account  both  the  county 
ratio  and  the  general  city  ratio.  For  example,  assume  a  piece  of  prop- 
erty in  which  the  building  value  is  30  per  cent,  and  the  land  value  70 
per  cent,  of  the  total.  Assume  also  that  the  county  relationship  is  25 
and  75  per  cent.  This  would  mean  lower  county  taxes.  Assume  the 
general  city  relationship  to  be  35  and  65  per  cent.  This  would  mean 
higher  city  taxes.  To  determine  whether  the  total  tax  bill  would  be 
increased  or  decreased  it  would  be  necessary  to  compare  the  size  of  the 
increase  with  the  size  of  the  decrease.  Or  this  may  be  done  by  the  use  of  a 
composite  ratio,  computed  from  the  general  city  ratio  and  the  county  ratio.* 

D.     THE  STANDARD  RATIOS 

The  following  table  gives  the  general  percentages  from  which  can 
be  determined  the  standard  relationship  of  improvement  values  to  build- 
ing values  in  1914  in  the  various  boroughs  of  the  City  of  New  York 
and  in  the  city  at  large  if 

Standard  Relationships  Between  Assessed  Values  of  Improvements  and  Values 
OF  Land  in  Various  Subdivisions  of  New  York  City 


Percentage  of  Total 

Improvements  (a)  Land  (a)  Improvements      Land 

Manhattan $1,657,719,056  $3,209,337,610  34.06  65.94 

Bronx         274,612,870  357,871,385  43. 42  56. 58 

Brooklyn        795,825,978  797,088,314  49. 96  50. 04 

Queens        179,334,522  293,906,195  37. 89  62. 11 

Richmond 38,087,988  41,655,683  47. 76  52. 24 

Aggregate $2,945,580,414  $4,699,859,187  38.53  61.47 

(a)     These  amounts  include  the  land  and  improvements  of  corporations.     The  real  estate  of  corporations 
divided  between  land  and  improvements,  is  as  follows: 

Improvements  Land  Total 

Manhattan J45,390,936  $47,387,950  $92,778,886 

Bronx                                 21,331,975  21,755,325  43,087.300 

Brooklyn 8,198,205  13,229.155  21.427,360 

Queens     "                          13.326,165  13,228,075  26.554.240 

Richmond*.'. 1.400.615  1,406.575  2.807,190 

Aggregate $89,647,896  $97,007,080  $186,654,976 

*  Cf.  infra,  p,  16. 

t  Unless  specifically  stated,  the  assessment  values  and  the  tax  rates  used  in  this  study  are  for 
the  year  1914.     These  were  the  latest  available  when  the  data  were  gathered. 

15 


It  will  be  seen  from  the  table  that  any  piece  of  real  estate  in  Man- 
hattan, for  example,  will  pay  greater  taxes  for  general  city  purposes 
under  the  new  plan  if  the  building  represents  less  than  38.53  per  cent, 
of  the  total  value  of  the  parcel.  The  same  parcel  will  pay  greater  county 
taxes  if  the  building  represents  less  than  34.06  per  cent,  of  the  total  value 
of  both  land  and  building. 

In  cases  where  county  taxes  will  be  increased  and  general  city  taxes 
decreased,  the  net  result  may  be  determined  by  applying  the  tax  rates 
and  comparing  the  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases.  But  this  is 
a  slow  process.  If  it  is  desired  to  learn  merely  whether  the  total  taxes 
are  increased  or  decreased,  without  reference  to  the  amounts  of  such 
increases  or  decreases,  the  end  can  be  accompHshed  by  comparing  the 
ratios  of  the  particular  parcels  with  a  composite  ratio,  made  up  from  the 
general  city  ratio  and  the  county  ratio.  The  general  city  taxes  are  much 
heavier  than  the  county  taxes.  Consequently  the  dividing  line  between 
the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  increase  and  those  whose  parcels  w'ould 
decrease  lies  much  nearer  the  general  city  ratio  than  the  county  ratio. 
Its  exact  position  is  determined  by  the  relative  size  of  the  tax  levies  for 
city  and  county  purposes.* 

The  standard  composite  ratios  are  as  follows : 

Standard  Composite  Ratios  for  the  Various  Subdivisions  of  New  York  City  (a) 

Improvements  Land 

Manhattan 38.34     :  61.66 

Bronx 38.71     :  61.29 

Brooklyn 39.44     :  60.56 

Queens 38.49     :  61.51 

Richmond 39.51      :  60.49 

(a)  These  ratios  are  computed  on  the  assumption  that  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  is  to  be  made 
half  of  that  on  land.  If  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  were  reduced  to  one  per  cent.,  these  figures  would 
be  altered  slightly,  in   no  case  so  much  as  to  affect   unit  figures. 

These  ratios  take  into  consideration  all  the  important  peculiarities 
of  the  boroughs,  their  differing  tax  rates  and  state  of  development.  To 
determine,  therefore,  whether  the  taxes  on  a  particular  parcel  of  real 
estate  in  any  borough  will  be  increased  or  decreased  by  the  adoption  of 
the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax  on  buildingsf  it  is  only  necessary  to  compare 
the  relationship  of  assessed  building  value  to  assessed  land  value  in  that 
parcel  with  the  standard  composite  ratio  for  that  borough.  Thus,  in 
Manhattan,  for  example,  any  parcel  in  which  the  land  is  worth  more 


*  The  proportion  used  is  as  follows:  the  levy  for  city  purposes  in  the  county  is  to  the  levy  for 
county  purposes  as  X  is  to  the  difference  between  the  terms  of  the  standard  city  ratio  and  the 
standard  county  ratio.  X  in  this  case  represents  an  amount  which  may  be  added  to  the  proper  terms 
in  the  county  or  city  ratios  to  form  a  new  composite  ratio.  The  matter  is  complicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  city  taxes  charged  to  the  property  in  the  various  counties  vary  with  the  extent  to  which  the 
tax  on  buildings  is  reduced.  This  factor  is  of  too  slight  importance,  however,  to  affect  the  com- 
posite ratios  seriously. 

■j-  To  fifty  per  cent,  of  that  on  land,  although  the  ratios  are  almost  identically  the  same  in  case 
the  ratio  on  buildings  is  reduced  to  one  per  cent,  of  that  on  land. 

16 


than  61.66  per  cent,  of  the  total  value  of  the  parcel  will  pay  greater 
taxes  and  vice  versa.  The  variation  in  the  standard  composite  ratios 
for  the  various  boroughs  is  relatively  slight.  The  land  factor  is  most 
important  in  Manhattan  (61.66  per  cent.)  and  of  least  importance  in 
Richmond  (60.49  per  cent.),  the  difference  between  the  extremes  being 
slightly  over  one  per  cent.  (1.17  per  cent.). 


17 


II.     EFFECTS   IN    THE    CITY  AS  A  WHOLE    UNDER 
CERTAIN   ASSUMED   CONDITIONS 

Attention  may  now  be  turned  to  a  consideration  of  the  effects  of 
transferring  the  tax  to  land.  What  will  be  the  results  of  the  change? 
Where  will  the  tax  bills  be  greater  and  where  smaller  and  how  great 
will  the  changes  be?  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  statements  now 
to  be  made  concerning  the  effects  assume  that  the  additional  tax  on  land 
values  will  not  have  the  effect  of  diminishing  the  assessed  values.  Later 
the  probable  readjustments  in  values  will  be  taken  into  consideration.* 

A.  EFFECTS  UPON  THE  TAX  BURDENS  OF  THE  BOROUGHS 
The  first  point  to  be  determined  is  the  effect  of  the  proposed  plan 
upon  the  distribution  of  the  taxes  among  the  various  boroughs  of  the 
city.t  The  accompanying  map  shows  the  boundaries  of  these  sub- 
divisions. Which  will  pay  the  greater  and  which  will  pay  the  smaller 
taxes  under  the  plan? 

(1).     Increases  and  Decreases 

As  has  been  seen|,  the  proposed  plan  leaves  the  distribution  of  county 
expenses  untouched.  Presumably  they  will  be  neither  reduced  nor  in- 
creased. It  is  only  in  the  distribution  of  the  general  city  expenses  among 
the  boroughs  that  a  change  will  result.  In  what  direction  these  changes 
will  occur  can  be  readily  determined  by  a  comparison  of  the  standard 
ratios  for  the  boroughs  with  that  of  the  city  in  general.  The  standard 
ratios  are : 

Standard  Ratios  for  the  City  of  New  York  and  for  the  Boroughs 

Improvements  Land 
City  of  New  York 38.5     :    61.5 

Manhattan 34. 1  :  65. 9 

Bronx 43.4  :  56.6 

Brooklyn 50.0  :  50.0 

Queens 37.9  :  62.1 

Richmond 47. 8  :  62. 2 

The  boroughs  which  have  a  larger  percentage  of  land  than  the  city 
in  general  (61.5  per  cent.)  are,  strangely  enough,  Manhattan  and 
Queens.**  This  indicates  that  these  two  boroughs  would  be  charged 
with  a  larger  share  of  the  city's  general  expenses  than  at  present.  The 
taxes  in  the  other  boroughs  would  be  lightened. 

*  Cf.  infra,  p.  121  et  se.q. 

t  The  boroughs  and  counties  are  coterminous. 
%  Cf.  nupra,  pp.  14-15. 

**  Manhattan  is  the  most  highly  improved  of  the  boroughs  in  proportion  to  its  area,  while 
Queens,  Richmond  alone  excepted,  is  the  most  poorly  improved. 

18 


MAP 
Showing  the:  5  Boroughs 

OF  THE 

City  of  New  York 


BOROUGH 

AREA                 1 

In  Acres 

In  Sq.  Miles 

MANHATTAN 

14038 

21.93 

THE  BRONX 

26017 

40.65 

BROOKLYN 

49680 

77.62 

QUEENS 

75111 

117.36 

RICHMOND 

36600 

57.19 

TOTAL 

201446 

314.75 

How  much  the  increases  and  decreases  in  the  various  boroughs 
would  be,  is  a  question  whose  answer  involves  somewhat  elaborate  calcu- 
lations. But  since  valuable  data  as  to  the  probable  effects  upon  tax 
rates  and  the  weight  of  the  burden  upon  the  various  classes  of  property 
in  the  tax  base  are  at  the  same  time  obtained,  the  process  may  be  profit- 
ably carried  through. 

(2).     The  Assessed  Values 

The  assessed  values  of  taxable  property  in  the  City  of  New  York  in 
1914,  arranged  as  they  would  be,  were  the  proposed  plan  adopted,  are 
presented  in  the  following  table : 

Assessed  Values  of  Property  Grouped  in  Accordance  with  the  Specifications  of 
THE  Plan  to  Untax  Buildings 


Group  One- 
Personal 
Property 

and 

Special 

Franchises 


Group  Two — 

Land, 

including 

Land 

of 

Corporations 


Group  Three — 
Improvements, 

including 
Improvements 

of 
Corporations 


Total 


Manhattan       (New 

York  Co.) $569,962,364 

Bronx 31,908,958 

Brooklyn  (Kings  Co.)  117,557,703 

Queens 21,361,189 

Richmond 3,925,657 

Aggregate $744,715,871 


$3,209,337,610 

357,871,385 

797,088,314 

293,906,195 

41,655,683 


$1,657,719,056 

274,612,870 

795,825,978 

179,334,522 

38,087,988 


$5,437,019,030 

664,393,213 

1,710,471,995 

494,601,906 

83,669,328 


$4,699,859,187     $2,945,580,414     $8,390,155,472 


(3).     The  Tax  Rates 

The  tax  rates  would  be  more  complicated  than  at  present.  The 
tax  payer  to-day  is  quoted  a  single  figure  for  each  borough — a  rate 
secured  by  adding  the  county  rate  for  that  borough  to  the  general  city 
rate.  Under  the  proposed  plan  there  would  be  three  tax  rates  for  each 
borough:  (1)  one  for  personal  property,  which,  presumably,  would 
be  the  same  as  the  rate  under  the  present  system;  (2)  a  rate  on  land, 
higher  than  the  first ;  and  (3)  a  rate  on  buildings  lower  than  the  first  and 
one-half  or  one  one-hundredth  of  the  second,  depending  upon  which  plan 
was  in  force.  The  tax  rates  which  would  result  from  adoption  of  the 
plans  under  the  assumed  conditions*  are  set  forth  in  the  accompany- 
ing table.f  The  rate  on  personal  property  would  remain  everywhere 
the  same  as  at  present.  If  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  were  halved,  the 
rate  on  land  in  Manhattan  would  increase  approximately  twenty- 
three  per  cent,  (to  2.20)  and  if  the  tax  on  buildings  were  reduced  to 
one  one-hundredth,  the  rate  on  land  would  increase  sixty-one  per  cent, 
(to  2.86).  The  rate  on  land  in  the  Bronx  would  be  less  than  the  Man- 
hattan rate.    The  rates  in  the  other  three  boroughs  would  be  higher,  the 


*  Cf.  supra,  p.   18. 

t  From  the  total  levy  in  each  case  was  subtracted  the  amount  charged  against  Group  One.  The 
remainder  was  made  one  term  of  an  equation,  the  other  of  which  was  the  assessed  value  of 
land  (Group  One)  multiplied  by  X  plus  the  assessed  value  of  buildings  multiplied  by  one-half  X 
or  one  one-hundredth  X  (as  the  case  might  be).  The  result  was  the  rate  on  land.  The  rate  on  build- 
ings was  one-half  or  one  one-hundredth  of  this  amount. 


20 


J2teE"       iX""^       05«0t^       (NMt^       t^Tfirt 


500       rt^o 


<<Nro       t-iT-i 


ioo     (Nroi^ 


^SiS     'SSSJ     ojioo     c».-i(N 
-iNro     (ooo     ooo     t~i-io 


3a^ 


<IN       (NOTt^ 


^Wro        rHrt 


i(5^'  i<a^  goo 


CJb-l^       lOOOO       t^iOI> 
I>C<lt^       *-HC0O       OOcDI^ 


WOSOS      t^c 


l-Ht,       OO' 


£22*^    S!^'^    <Ncot 


■-loo,-!     coiOKO 
ooo     t^oo 


»(N         rtr^ 


:j 

s 

■^ 

g 

:^ 

s 

::s 

8 

•:^ 

B 

■:s 

s 

;3§ 

38     :" 

0  a 

■22 

'  a  a 

•  5^ 

ill 

:|| 

:i2 

-■■M 

2i     : 
g  ^ 

a 

a 

:§ 

i 

d& 

i 

if 

£ 
> 

B 

:a 

a 

:5 

a 

> 

a     : 

::^M     r??MM     .?w>3      ^JSJi      >^£3      >,aa      >>aH      >,a 

9s  -tsSa  -wOd  -lifla  ^aa  ^ao  ^aa  ^a 
aoo  aoo  aoo  aoo  ooo  a o 5 


fli  rt^  Si  r"  M'-'w       tjw^_j       Hwu       auo       doo 

m  m  ill  ill  ill  ill  ill  ill  III 

Mi^  ^«£_  fertrt  (i,p^«   (n«Pi   £pstf   itfrt  (i;«rt   £«« 


32§ 


O 


a  <» 

S 
0° 


■3^ 
<b  o 


III   1^ 
03  g 


T3T3 

II 


21 


highest  rate  being  in  Richmond  (3.11  assuming  the  more  drastic  plan  in 
force).  The  rates  on  improvements  in  Manhattan  would  drop  to  1.05,  with 
the  tax  rate  halved,  and  to  practically  nothing  with  the  full  plan  in  force. 

(4).     The  Amounts  of  Taxes  Payable 

The  changes  in  the  rates  are  much  more  violent  than  the  changes 
in  the  weight  of  the  burden  borne  by  the  various  boroughs.  As  will  be 
observed  from  the  table  on  page  23,  the  amount  of  taxes  payable  would 
not  be  seriously  affected  in  three  of  the  boroughs.  The  Bronx  and 
Richmond  would  be  called  upon  to  pay  slightly  smaller  sums  for  general 
city  purposes  and  Queens  a  slightly  larger  sum.  Brooklyn  and  Manhat- 
tan are  the  only  boroughs  where  material  changes  of  this  type  would 
result.  If  the  full  plan  were  put  in  force  Manhattan's  share  of  the 
general  expenses  of  the  city  would  increase  approximately  six  million 
dollars  while  Brooklyn's  share  would  decrease  by  almost  the  same 
amount.    These  facts  are  more  plainly  set  forth  in  the  graph. 

GENERAL  CITY  TAXES  PAID  BY  THE  VARIOUS  BOROUGHS  OF  THE  CITY 

UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED 

PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 


PRESENT    SYSTEIVI 


Ca) 


MANHATTAN 
92.4  MILLIONS 

(0 

X  2 

BROOKLYN 
2d  MILLIONS 

to 

UJ  J 

lu-t 

RATE   ON   IMPROVEMENTS    ONE  HALF    RATE   ON     LAND 


(b) 


94.7  MILLIONS 

to 

z 

27.2  MILLIONS 

(0 

d 

z 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS    ONE- ONE-HUNDREDTH   RATE  ON  LAND 


98.3  MILLIONS 

(0 

24.1  MILLIONS 

2 
o 

f 
tn 

00 

RICHMOND 

(a)  1.4  MILLIONS 

(b)  1.3  MILLIONS 
(C)  1.2  MILLIONS 


(0 


22 


30C<5       rHOlio       Tji 


io»ot>-     cooit>-     c^ lo lo     Tj*cot>-     Oi-to     cc »o ''i^    io»o« 


ICO-*     050N     (NO>-(<     -HOltO 


SJod     Sod     Sod 
§QQ     gQQ     SqQ 


3100        OI^Q 


(N  (N  Tt<       O  00  CO 

rt_woo     0  0  05 

■<j<"«dcd'     t)<"t)<"io 

oooco 


ooc 
o'-h" 


OOJOO 


i-HOt^      CD  lO  QO      00  «2  10 

c^csioi    t^t^tC   oo"o 


10050       t^O' 


J5  d  d     !5  o'  d 


O  o  O       OM<^ 

(nPQ     qroto     Tj<_ 


T).  TO  to 

03T|<'0 
I>OiO 


■*  cocq  CO  ci  •- 

t-"'-<''d'  t>ro"c 

OOOOCC  TllOr 

t^OllN  CO  T»1 


>ot>co    mc^c^j 

1-i  o  03    -^J"  t~  CO 

^co 

OCD 


--;i>o    -^Tjt-n 


»-Hcor^  ioioo  cOi-«co 

UU^        OjTt^^H  C>050^  i-H-jT^ 

-^rH       C^I-^C^  10»0»0  00000 

■^  -"^CCC^  ^H  i-H  rH  »OiOCO 


5cO(N    iNO>ra    t^h 


JQO 


C^  00<X)       CD  0<N 


CCCOt^  t^I>M  00»0  0000 

00  lO  '^COC^  (NCOrH  Ot^CO 

0020  00  CO  (N  ,— I  1-H  1-H  Oi  Tt<  CO 

r"^*"'^"  5SSS5S  cToTCTr  io"iCiC 

(NGSiO  OCOCO  t^t^r^  CO^MCO 

"-H*^  "^"^"^  "^  Tt^  t}^  C0OSC5 


Sqq    ??qp    ^qq    g§2 

00  rt  05  ooo'c^" 


oiioco     ocDcq  ro^oo  r- . ^ ,.,    ....^ 

■^ ^ »o     ococo  -^ to 00  cot-co     »ooco     ooooco    tot^o    t^»OT-( 

q?r-tco     -^coco  CO  Tji  CO  CO  c<j 

I  C5  lO  Tt(  i-H  T^ 


ilNCO 
Jt^O 


coiocc    m t^Tt< 


S92  o 

i-HOJCO  O  O  c<l  C^^Ci  -^ -^  TJ^  COCO-^ 

c>frC^  O'do"  co"co"oo  t^'^TtC  o'co'co" 

^  (N  (N  '-I  O  fj<  (^10^  -^ -^l*  Tj<  OIOCD 

Ot^  CD.-(_(M  Or-._iM  C0_COCO  TlH^lOrf 


;gt^    t^o 


-O     -^COIN     OCO^ 


:C3r,    ocoio    .-(.-1^ 
30>  (N05t)<     -^TjiT)! 

H(N  r-Too" 


§6 


zo 


TjfCDOO 

lOlOrH 


t~CD-*  —1000 

^  •*  C-l  O  CD  Tt< 

c>(No>  r^'i'i-i 

•*-*00  OlOt^ 

•*05CD  0)1000 


300  ooorf  or^co  ooooo  oot^r 

jro  COiOrtH  CT^OO  lOCO-H  lOTfc 

<_o  ■*'-i'0  o_t^Ti<_  co_io_»  r-(Mc 

;a)  aoo-^  ■*{Nco  oo"oo"od  M-nt 


<o<N    cococ 


,s.a 


:^^ 


ass 
S.3a 


^^ 


aa 


:«;:? 


:s:;:^ 


rt  o  o      ct  o  o 
S  0)  o       S  »  a> 


goo 
^aa 

saa 


a  o  o 
sS5 


-2  a  a    -S  a  a 

§,  a  a    s  a  a 


^  fl  a     ^01 


;aa      ;nn      ;Cih      :oa 

J>>         «>>         «■>>         ri'>> 

ago  ago  agg  ago 

5aa  -Saa    "aa  -Sao, 

saa  ^aa  ^aa  saa 

M'-"-'     !»'-"-'    W'-"-'    W'-'M 

+jad    +:,fla    ^jdd    ^aa 
floo     doo     doo     dOo 

g«^    s^^    ^ss  ^ss  ^ss  iss 

£tfe^    £««    ^H^  ^'^'^  ^^^  ^^^ 


tM 


Oa-S 


3S- 


§ 

■3 

S 

d 

s 

0 

0 

fH 

0 

0 

H 

^  : 

•35 

as 

=3.2 

^^■^5 

iisi 

S^-o 

0 

0 

23 


B.     EFFECTS  UPON  THE  TAX  BURDEN  OF  VARIOUS  TYPES 
OF  PROPERTY 

One  more  point  calls  for  consideration  at  this  place :  viz.,  the  effect 
of  the  proposed  changes  upon  the  amounts  of  taxes  charged  to  the 
various  types  of  property  which  enter  into  the  composition  of  the  tax 
base.    With  the  aid  of  the  graph  these  effects  become  apparent. 

PORTION  OF  TOTAL  TAXES  CARRIED  BY  VARIOUS  ELEMENTS  OF  THE 

TAX  BASE  UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE 

PROPOSED   PLANS   TO   UNTAX   IMPROVEMENTS 

PRESENT    SYSTEM 


Pi 

LAND 
84-  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
52.8  MILLIONS 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS   ONE-HALF  RATE  ON  LAND 


pi 

LAND 
104.1  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
32.8  MILLIONS 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS   ONE- ONE-HUNDREDTH  RATE  ON  LAND 


Personal  property  would,  under  the  assumed  conditions,  continue 
to  pay  the  same  amount  as  before.  The  share  of  land  would  increase 
from  84  to  104  millions,  if  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved,  and  to  136 
millions,  if  the  full  plan  were  adopted.  These  increases,  of  course,  are 
accompanied  by  exactly  corresponding  decreases  in  the  share  of  general 
city  taxes  payable  by  buildings. 

C.     SUMMARY 


It  is  seen,  then,  that,  under  the  assumed  conditions  of  unvarying 
values  in  the  tax  base,  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  would 
result  in  a  redistribution  of  general  city  expenses  among  the  boroughs. 

24 


The  taxes  of  Manhattan  would  be  considerably  increased  and  those  of 
Brooklyn  considerably  decreased.  Taxes  in  Queens  would  be  very 
slightly  increased  and  in  the  Bronx  and  in  Richmond,  slightly  decreased. 
Tax  rates  on  land  would,  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  improve- 
ments, increase  by  amounts  ranging  from  42  points  (Manhattan  and 
the  Bronx)  to  47  points  (Richmond).  Under  the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax 
on  buildings  to  one  one-hundredth  of  the  rate  on  land,  the  land  rate 
would  increase  109  points  in  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx,  111  points  in  Queens, 
118  points  in  Brooklyn  and  122  points  in  Richmond.  The  rates  on  improve- 
ments in  the  case  of  the  first  plan  would  be  approximately  two-thirds  of 
the  present  rates  and  under  the  full  plan  would  be  negligible. 

In  the  city  at  large,  the  adoption  of  the  first  plan*  would  increase 
the  amount  noW  paid  by  land  owners  as  taxes  from  84  millions  to  104 
millions.  The  adoption  of  the  full  planf  means  the  increase  of  this 
sum  to  136  millions. 


*  By  this  is  meant  the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax  on  buildings  to  one-half  the  tax   on  land. 
t  This  is  the  reduction   of  the   tax  on  buildings  to  one  one-hundredth  the  tax   on  land. 


25 


III.     THE   EFFECTS   IN    MANHATTAN   UNDER 
CERTAIN   ASSUMED   CONDITIONS* 

The  increase  in  general  city  taxes  which  would  fall  to  the  share  of 
Manhattan  has  already  been  discussed. f  The  effects  within  the  borough 
will  next  be  traced. 

A.     TAX  RATES 

The  following  graph|  presents  the  results  which  may  be  anticipated 
upon  the  Manhattan  tax  rates  in  case  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  build- 
ings are  adopted. 

MANHATTAN 
RATES  UPON  THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PROPERTY  UNDER  THE  PRES- 
ENT SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX 
BUILDINGS 


3% 

O 
< 

^/. 

D 

< 

-J 

in 

2 
o 

I 

p- 
r- 

a 

o 
D- 

i 

z 
o 
lO 

a 

_ 

in 

Q 

Z 
< 

J 

> 

o 
cc 

a 

J 

4. 

Z 

o 

10 

tt 

D 

; 

UJ 

D- 
O 

a: 
a 

z 
o 
7) 

- 

">/. 

s 

z 
5 

1 

a 

2 
u 

a 

5 

PRESENT 
&-<&TEM 


RA-TE.     ON  R/\TE:    on 

PROVEMELNTS  IMPROVEMENTS     ONE- 

LFR^TtONLAND  ONE-HUNDREDTVi       R'^TE 

ON      L^NO 


p.  18. 


■  The  most  important  condition  assumed  is  that  the  assessed  values  will  not  be  disturbed.     Cf.  supra, 

trC/.  supra,  pp.  22-23. 

X  The  statistics  upon   which    this   graph   is  based  are  presented   in   detail   in   the   table   on   p.  21. 


26 


B.     DISTRIBUTION  OF  BURDEN  AMONG  THE  ELEMENTS  IN 
THE  TAX  BASE 

The  share  of  the  tax  burden  in  Manhattan  which  is  carried  by  per- 
sonal property,  land  and  improvements  under  the  present  system  and 
the  changes  that  will  be  wrought  by  the  adoption  of  proposed  plans  are 
set  forth  in  the  following  graph : 


MANHATTAN 

DISTRIBUTION   OF  TAXES  AMONG  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  TAX  BASE 

UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED 

PLANS  TO   UNTAX   BUILDINGS 

PRESENT      SYSTEM 


l-rs 

Sl^3 

LAND 

IMPROVEWIENTS 

PER50 
PROPE 
lO.I  MIL 

57  MILLIONS 

E9.4  iVllLLiONS 

RATE  ON  IMPROVEMENTS  ONE-HALF  RATE  ON  LAND 


PERSONAL 

PROPERTY 

10.1  MILLIONS 

LAND 
70.5  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 

18.2 

MILLIONS 

.RATE   ON   IMPROVEMENTS   ONE-ONE-HUNDREDTH     RATE  ON    LAND 


(a)  ^474, 54-1.  ST 


C.     EFFECTS  IN  THE  VARIOUS  ASSESSMENT   SECTIONS  OF 
THE  BOROUGH 


For  the  purposes  of  assessment  the  Borough  of  Manhattan  is  divided 
into  eight  sections,  whose  boundaries  are  traced  on  the  map  on 
page  28. 

27 


^OROUGW 
MANHATTAN 


28 


Tax  Levies  Upon  the  Real  Estate  (a)  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of 

Manhattan  Under  thf  Present  System,  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Improvements, 
One-Half 


Rate  on 
Improvements, 
One  One- 
Hundredth 


Increases  and  Decreases 

Rate  Rate  on 
on  Improvements, 
Improvements,  One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


Section  1: 

Land $9,771,736.30  $12,089,266.12  $15,751,851.38 

Improvements 4,368,995.27  2,702,575.29  70,412.11 

$14,140,731.57  $14,791,841.41  $15,822,263.49      -i-$651,109.84   +$1,681,531.92 

Section  2: 

Land $5,969,478 .  52  $7,385,239 .  67  $9,622,684 .  82 

Improvements 3,152,794.37  1,950,257.13  50,811.43 

$9,122,272.89  $9,335,496.80  $9,673,496.25        +213,223.91        +551,223.86 

Section  3: 

Land $12,921,181.26  $15,985,654.35  $20,828,696.21 

Improvements 5,457,975.16  3,376,197.02  87,962.46 

$18,379,156.42  $19,361,851.37  $20,916,658.67         +982,694.95     +2,537,502.25 

Section  4: 

Land $7,623,248.70  $9,431,228.96  $12,288,530.61 

Improvements 4,163,987.86  2,575,761.70  67,108.15 

$11,787,236.56  $12,006,990.66  $12,355,638.76        +219.754.10        +568.402.20 

Section  5: 

Land $11,087,941.49  $13,717,631.28  $17,873,548.89 

Improvements 5,191,772.13  3,211,529.01  83,672.24 

$16,279,713.62  $16,929,160.29  $17,957,221.13         +649,446.67     +1.677,507.51 

Section  6: 

Land $2,610,385.35  $3,229,481.67  $4,207,891.09 

Improvements 1,748,392.79  1,081,521.69  28.177.65 

$4,358,778.14  $4,311,003.36  $4,236,068.74          — 47,774.78        —122,709.40 

Section  7: 

Land $4,511,848.63  $5,581,908.59  $7,273,013.40 

Improvements 3,545,599.52  2,193,238.74  57,142.01 

$8,057,448.15  $7,775,147.33  $7,330,155.41        —282,300.82        —727,292.74 

Section  8: 

Land $1,655,346.59  $2,047,939.58  $2,668,386.94 

Improvements 1,002,850.59  620,343.82  16,162.26 

$2,658,197.18  $2,668,283.40  $2,684,549.20          +10.086.22          +26,352.02 

Total 

Land $56,151,166.84  $69,468,350.23  $90,514,603.36 

Improvements 28,632,367.69  17,711,424.40  461.448.31 

$84,783,534.53  $87,179,774.63  $90,976,051.67     +2,396.240.10     +6,192,517.14 


(a)     Not  including  the  "Real  Estate  of  Corporations." 

29 


The  largest  increase  in  taxes  would  result  in  Section  Three  between 
14th  and  40th  streets.  The  net  increase  for  the  real  estate  of  the  island 
under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  be  $2,936,240.10 
and  under  the  full  plan,  $6,192,517.14. 

In  which  of  these  sections  taxes  on  real  estate  would  increase  and 
in  which  they  would  decrease  may  be  ascertained  from  the  data  presented 
in  the  following  table : 

Assessed  Values  and  Ratios  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of  Manhattan 
{Standard  Composite  Ratio,  38.34:  61.66) 


Assessed  Values 


Improvements 


Land 


Ratios 


Taxes 
Payable 


Section  1. 
Section  2. 
Section  3. 
Section  4. 
Section  5. 
Section  6. 
Section  7. 
Section  8. 


$246,024,150 
177,538,200 
307,346,110 
234,479,900 
292,355,850 
98,454,410 
199,657,600 
56,471,900 


$550,259,950 
336,149,570 
727,609,540 
429,275,650 
624,377,280 
146,994,400 
254,068,420 
93,214,850 


30.9:69.1 
34.6:65.4 
29.7:70.3 
35.3:64.7 
31.9:68.1 
40.1 :59.9 
44.0:56.0 
37.7:62.3 


Increased 


Decreased 
Increased 


It  appears  from  this  table  that  the  only  sections  in  Manhattan  where 
real  estate  as  a  whole  (land  and  improvements)  will  pay  smaller  taxes 
under  the  new  plan  than  at  present  are  sections  six  and  seven,  comprising 
a  belt  of  territory  from  96th  Street  to  155th  Street  entirely  across  the 
island. 

The  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases  in  the  levies  on  real 
estate  in  the  various  assessment  sections  are  shown  in  the  table  on  page  29. 


30 


D.     EFFECTS  IN  SELECTED  SECTIONS  OF  THE  BOROUGH 

(1).     The  "Sky  Scraper"  Section 

Increased 65 

Decreased 99 

164 

South  of  Chambers  Street  in  1914  there  were  164  buildings  ten 
stories  or  more  in  height.  The  ratio  of  improvement  value  to  land  value  was 
obtained  for  each  of  these  parcels.  By  comparing  with  the  standard 
composite  ratio  for  Manhattan  (38.34:61.66)  it  became  evident  that  the 
adoption  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  would  mean  reduced  taxes  for 
the  great  majority.  Only  a  few  more  than  one-third  (65  as  compared 
with  164)  of  these  buildings  would  have  their  taxes  increased.  More- 
over, as  is  shown  by  the  following  table  the  increased  taxes  will  fall 
chiefly  upon  the  smaller  buildings. 

Buildings  Whose  Taxes  Will   be  Increased  or  Decreased  Grouped  According 

TO  Height 


Number  of  Stories 

Niimber  of 

Parcels 

Whose  Taxes 

Wotild  be 

Increased 

Number  of 

Parcels 

Whose  Taxes 

Would  be 

Decreased 

Total 

10                  

17 

11 
8 

24 
5 
3 
6 
8 
2 
3 
3 
4 
5 
1 
3 
3 
2 
2 
3 
1 
1 
1 

28 

11                  

5 

13 

12                   

14 

38 

13                  

6 

11 

14                   

2 

5 

15                    

3 

9 

16                    

6 

14 

17                    

1 

3 

18                  

4 

7 

19                  

1 

4 

20                  

2 

6 

21                  

2 

7 

22              

1 

2 

23              

3 

25            

1 

4 

26          

2 

30          

2 

32          

3 

33        

1 

40        

1 

54        

1 

65 

99 

164 

It  will  be  observed  that  every  building  in  the  district  over  twenty- 
five  stories  in  height  (ten)  would  pay  smaller  taxes.  If  the  tax  on 
buildings  were  halved,  the  Woolworth  building,  with  its  54  stories,  would 
receive  a  decrease  in  annual  taxes  of  $28,847.64;  the  40  story  Singer 
building  would  receive  one  of  $3,473.40;  and  the  ZZ  story  City  Investment 
building  one  of  $12,742.36.  If  the  full  plan  were  adopted,  the  Woolworth 
building,  instead  of  paying  $156,273.92  annually,  as  at  present,  would 

31 


pay  but  $81,870.56  and  the  other  buildings  would  receive  corresponding 
decreases  not  so  great. 

The  simple  arithmetic  average  of  the  assessed  values  of  all  ten-story 
buildings  w^as  calculated  and  the  ratio  between  the  land  value  and  build- 
ing value  of  this  "type"  was  determined.  The  result  showed  the  average 
ten-story  building  in  this  district  stood  on  a  plot  whose  value  was  three 
times  that  of  the  building.  This  relationship  (25  :75)  is  above  the  stand- 
ard composite  ratio  for  Manhattan  (38.34:61.66),  which  indicates  that 
the  taxes  on  the  typical  ten-story  building  would  increase  were  the  pro- 
posed plan  adopted.  The  same  calculations  were  made  for  buildings  of 
every  height  and  it  was  found  that  this  was  true  also  of  the  average 
eleven,  thirteen  and  eighteen  story  building.  Average  buildings  of  every 
other  height  would  be  taxed  less  heavily.  In  some  cases  the  number  of 
buildings  of  a  particular  height  is  so  small  as  to  make  the  type  identical 
with  a  single  building.  This  is,  of  course,  unsatisfactory,  and  leads  to  a 
table  whose  items  are  of  uneven  merit.  But  from  the  table  as  it  stands, 
some  conclusions  may  be  drawn.  As  will  be  seen,  there  is  considerable 
unevenness  in  the  average  values  and  some  unevenness,  although  con- 
siderably less,  in  the  ratios. 

Arithmetic  Average  of  the  Assessed  Values  of  Buildings  of  Various  Heights  and 
THE  Relationship  Between  the  Value  of  Land  and  Building 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio,  38.34:61.66) 


Number 

Number 

Assessed  Values — Average  Parcel 

of 

of 

Value  of 

Value  of 

Stories 

Buildings 

Building 

Land 

Ratio 

10 

28 

$256,071.43 

$758,928.57 

25:75 

11 

13 

377,307.69 

698,461.54 

35:65 

12 

38 

280,263.16 

419,207.89 

40:60 

13 

11 

341,363.64 

562,727.27 

38:62 

14 

5 

296,000.00 

459,000.00 

39:61 

15 

9 

866,666.67 

1,313,888.89 

40:60 

16 

14 

735,357.14 

936,071.43 

44:56 

17 

3 

496,666.67 

775,000.00 

39:61 

18 

7 

617,285.71 

1,098,357.14 

36:64 

19 

4 

950,000.00 

1,206,250.00 

44:56 

20 

6 

715,833.34 

1,011,666.67 

41:59 

21 

7 

1,550,000.00 

2,296,428.57 

40:60 

22 

2 

1,425,000.00 

1,725,000.00 

45:55 

23 

3 

1,328,333.33 

1,105,000.00 

55:45 

25 

4 

997,500.00 

1,091,250.00 

48:52 

26 

2 

1,737,500.00 

1,062,500.00 

62:38 

30 

2 

1,775,000.00 

2,100,000.00 

46:54 

32 

3 

1,841,666.67 

2,458,333.33 

43:57 

33 

1 

3,700,000.00 

2,925,000.00 

56:44 

40 

1 

3,000,000.00 

4,000,000.00 

43:57 

54 

1 

6,000,000.00 

2,800,000.00 

68:32 

This  latter  fact  is  brought  out  more  clearly  in  the  accompanying 
graph  which  presents  the  same  facts  concerning  the  ratios  as  are  given 
in  the  table.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  curve  representing  the  relationship  of 
land  value  to  building  value  is  somewhat  irregular,  particularly  in  the  part 


32 


dealing  with  the  higher  buildings  where  the  number  of  buildings  in  each 
class  is  smaller.  The  general  direction  of  the  curve  is,  however,  very- 
clear.  If  "smoothed"  by  grouping  a  number  of  the  types  together,  it 
would  show  a  fairly  steady  progress  downward.  Stated  in  general 
terms,  the  analysis  of  the  facts   shows  that  the  higher  the  building, 


RELATIONSHIP    OF    IMPROVEMENT    VALUE    TO    LAND    VALUE    IN    THE 

CASE    OF    AVERAGE    BUILDINGS    OF    VARIOUS    HEIGHTS    IN 

NEW  YORK  CITY 


lOQ 

90 

6Q 
70 
60 
50 

' 

; 

, 

I 

UILDINC 

Value 

> 

^-V^*^- 

.A 

.Stand^d, 

Composite 

.M'Q.... 

V  v 

\\ 

/ 

"\ 

/ 

\ 

■ 

v 

v 

I 

/ 

\ 

\ 

on 

V 

\ 

LAND 
VALUE 

W 

20 


25 


30  35 

KTUMBER  OF  STORIES 


40 


45 


50        54 


the  larger  the  value  of  the  building  as  compared  with  the  value  of 
the  land.  The  deduction  is  that  the  higher  the  building,  the  greater  will 
be  the  reduction  in  the  tax  on  that  parcel.  In  other  words,  in  the  situa- 
tion actually  present,  the  taller  the  building  the  greater  the  reduction 
in  taxes,  not  merely  absolutely  but  proportionally.     To  the  extent  that 


the  buildings  are  owned  by  individuals,  the  change  in  the  system  would 
amount  to  the  application  of  the  principle  of  regressivity  among  the 
owners  of  buildings  over  ten  stories  in  height. 

In  the  detailed  data  which  are  presented  in  an  appendix*  the  build- 
ings are  classified  according  to  height,  and  are  then  subdivided  into 
groups,  Group  A,  consisting  of  those  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  in- 
creased, and,  Group  B,  of  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased.  The 
assessed  values  falling  within  each  group  and  class  are  presented  here- 
with. 

Assessed  Values  of  Buildings  Ten  Stories  High  and  Over  South  of  Chambers 

Street  Grouped  According  to  Height  and  the  Effect  Upon  Taxes 

Payable  Under  the  Proposed  Plan  to  Untax  Buildings 

GROUP  A:    Parcels  whose  Taxes  would  be  Increased 


Ntunber 

of 
Stories 

Assessed  Values 

Improvements 

Land 

Total 

10 

$4,960,000 

$19,565,000 

$24,525,000 

11 

1,955,000 

5,940,000 

7,895,000 

12 

3,800,000 

9,970,000 

13,770,000 

13 

1,555,000 

3,655,000 

5,210,000 

14 

650,000 

1,750,000 

2,400,000 

15 

5,065,000 

9,200,000 

14,265,000 

16 

3,320,000 

6,305,000 

9,625,000 

17 

425,000 

1,375,000 

1,800,000 

18 

3,350,000 

7,175,000 

10,525,000 

19 

1,100,000 

1,850,000 

2,950,000 

20 

1,355,000 

2,925,000 

4,280,000 

21 

1,850,000 

3,575,000 

5,425,000 

22 

1,100,000 

2,900,000 

4,000,000 

25 

550,000 

950,000 

1,500,000 

$31,035,000 

$77,135,000 

$108,170,000 

GROUP  B: 

Parcels  whose  Taxes  would  be  Decreased 

Number 

of 
Stories 

Assessed  Values 

I  mprovements 

Land 

Total 

10 

$2,210,000 

$1,685,000 

$3,895,000 

11 

2,950,000 

3,140,000 

6,090,000 

12 

6,850,000 

5,959,900 

12,809,900 

13 

2,200,000 

2,535,000 

4,735,000 

14 

830,000 

545,000 

1,375,000 

15 

2,735,000 

2,625,000 

5,360,000 

16 

6,975,000 

6,800,000 

13,775,000 

17 

1,065,000 

950,000 

2,015,000 

18 

971,500 

513,500 

1,485,000 

19 

2,700,000 

2,975,000 

5,675,000 

20 

2,940,000 

3,145,000 

6,085,000 

21 

9,000,000 

12,500,000 

21,500,000 

22 

1,750,000 

550,000 

2,300,000 

23 

3,985,000 

3,315,000 

7,300,000 

25 

3,440,000 

3,415,000 

6,855,000 

26 

3,475,000 

2,125,000 

5,600,000 

30 

3,550,000 

4,200,000 

7,750,000 

32 

5,525,000 

7,375,000 

12,900,000 

33 

3,700,000 

2,925,000 

6,625,000 

40 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

7,000,000 

54 

6,000,000 

2,800,000 

8,800,000 

$75,851,500 

$74,078,400 

$149,929,900 

•  Infra. 

pp.   138-144. 

34 


By  extending  the  tax  rates  against  the  total  values  thus  determined 
the  results  presented  in  the  accompanying  table  are  obtained. 

Tax   Levies  on   Skyscrapers  (a)  South  of  Chambers  Street  Under  the  Present 
System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 

Present  Rate  on  Improvements  Rate  on  Improvements 

System  One-Half  One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or  Increase  or 

Levy  Levy              Decrease                     Levy               Decrease 
Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements $551,131.94  $340,919.48    — $210,212.46            $8,882.22      — $542,249.72 

Land 1,369,794.18  1,694,663.66      -1-324,869.48       2,208,081.94         -1-838,287.76 

$1,920,926.12     $2,035,583.14     -|-$114,657.02     $2,216,964.16       -[-$296,038.04 
Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements $1,347,001.28        $833,228.73  —$513,772.55  $21,708.70  —$1,325,292.58 

Land 1,315,513.86       1,627,509.86       -f311,996.00       2,120,583.09         -1-805,069.23 

$2,662,515.14     $2,460,738.59    —$201,776.55     $2,142,291.79      —$520,223.35 
Total: 

Improvements $1,898,133.22     $1,174,148.21    —$723,985.01  $30,590.92  —$1,867,542.30 

Land 2,685,308.04       3,322,173.52      -f636,865.48       4,328,665.03      -|- 1,643,356. 99 

$4,583,441.26     $4,496,321.73      — $87,119.53     $4.359,255.95      —$224,185.31 

(a)     All  buildings  over  ten  stories  are  included. 

The  imposition  of  the  plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings  would  in- 
crease the  taxes  of  certain  of  the  smaller  buildings  by  $114,657.02  and 
decrease  the  taxes  of  the  other  parcels  $201,776.55.  The  annual  revenue 
to  the  city  from  this  class  of  property  would  be  diminished  $87,119.53. 
If  the  full  plan  were  adopted,  the  increases  to  the  smaller  buildings  would 
amount  to  $296,038.04  and  the  total  decreases  to  $520,223.35,  a  net 
reduction  in  taxes  on  buildings  of  this  type  of  $224,185.31. 

If  the  entire  decrease  in  the  tax  on  buildings  were  passed  on  to  the 
tenants,  rents  might  be  expected  to  decrease  in  these  buildings  $723,- 
985.01  under  the  half -rate  plan  and  $1,867,542.30  under  the  full  plan. 
The  other  side  of  the  shield  is  shown  when  it  is  stated  that  the  owners 
of  the  plots  on  which  these  buildings  stand  would  suffer,  under  the 
assumed  conditions*  a  diminution  in  their  net  annual  return  from  their 
land  of  $636,865.48  under  the  half-rate  plan  and  of  $1,643,356.99  under 
the  full  plan.  Capitalized  at  five  per  cent,  this  would  mean  a  deprecia- 
tion of  $12,737,309.60  or  approximately  eight  and  one-half  per  cent, 
under  the  half-rate  plan  and  of  $32,867,139.80  or  nearly  twenty-two  per 
cent,  in  case  the  full  plan  were  adopted. 

(2).     Tenement  Sections 

(a).     Upper  East  Side  Section 

Increased 2 

Decreased 120 

122 

*  The  asssumptions  here  are  that  the  reduction  of  the  tax  on  buildings  will  not  release  forces 
which  will  increase  land  values  and  that  the  change  will  be  made  suddenly  without  an  opportunity 
for  it  to  be  discounted  beforehand. 

35 


Between  First  and  Second  avenues  and  between  99th  and  103rd 
streets  lies  a  district  almost  solidly  built  up  with  tenements.*  Practi- 
cally all  of  the  buildings  are  of  five  or  six  stories.  Some  were  built 
before  the  new  tenement  law  went  into  effect  in  1901,  43  of  the  55  build- 
ings which  are  five  stories  in  height  and  twelve  of  the  67  six-story  build- 
ings being  of  this  class.f  It  will  be  seen  that  more  than  half,  however, 
are  of  the  variety  commonly  known  as  "new-law"  tenements. 

The  effects  of  removing  the  tax  on  buildings  in  this  section  are 
practically  all  in  one  direction.  On  only  two  of  the  122  parcels  would 
taxes  be  increased.  Both  of  these  are  old,  five-story  tenements.  Most  of 
the  buildings  bear  a  very  high  proportion  to  the  value  of  the  land  on 
which   they  stand. 

The  assessed  values,  grouped  according  to  the  effects  of  the  plans,  are: 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Uptown  Tenement  House  Section 


Improvements         Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $14,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 2,521,000 

Total $2,535,500 


$24,000 
1,315,500 


$38,500 
3,836,500 


$1,339,500        $3,875,000 


Applying  the  tax  rates,  the  following  results  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  the  Owners  of  Parcels  in  the  Uptown  Tenement  Section 

Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to 

Untax  Buildings. 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate    on    Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Grodp  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$257.50 
426.20 

$159.28 
627.28 

—$98.22 
+  101.08 

$4.15 
687.03 

-$253.35 
+260.83 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$683.70 

$44,768.93 
23,361.18 

$686.56 

$27,693.18 
28,906.67 

+  $2.86 

—$17,075.75 
+5,545.49 

$691.18 

$721.51 
37,657.77 

+  $7.48 

—$44,047.42 
+  14,296.59 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$68,130.11 

$45,026.43 
23,787.38 

$56,599.85 

$27,852.46 
29,433.95 

—$11,530.26 

—$17,173.97 
+5,646.57 

$38,379.28 

$725.66 
38,334.80 

—$29,750.83 

—$44,300.77 
+  14,547.42 

$68,813.81 

$57,286.41 

—$11,527.40 

$39,060.46 

—$29,753.35 

•  This  district  includes  assessment  blocks  1671,  1672,  1673  and  1674. 

t  The  insurance  atlas  was   used  to  secure  this  information  and  there  is  a  possibility   of   slight 
inaccuracies. 


If  the  full  plan  were  put  into  elTect,  the  total  taxes  on  the  122  tene- 
ments would  be  almost  cut  in  half.  Instead  of  paying  $68,813.81  they 
would  pay  $39,060.46.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  there  would 
be  a  net  reduction  in  the  taxes  of  $11,527.40,  or  approximately  seventeen 
per  cent.  The  movement  is  practically  all  in  one  direction,  the  increase 
on  the  two  tenements  which  would  pay  heavier  taxes  being  almost  negli- 
gible. 

The  average  parcel  in  this  section  consists  of  a  building  worth 
$20,783  and  a  plot  worth  $10,979.  The  taxes  at  present  on  such  a  parcel 
amount  to  $564.04.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  they  would  be 
seventeen  per  cent,  less,  or  $469.51.  If  the  full  plan  were  adopted  the 
decrease  would  amount  to  $243.80,  or  43%.  The  amount  payable  then 
would  be  but  $320.24. 

The  decrease  in  the  annual  taxes  on  buildings  alone  in  this  section 
under  the  half-rate  plan  amounts  to  the  considerable  sum  of  $17,173.97. 
Under  the  assumed  conditions  this  is  the  maximum  sum  available  for 
lowering  rents.  Under  the  same  set  of  assumptions  the  net  revenue  to 
the  land  owners  would  be  decreased  $5,646.57.  Capitalized  at  a  rate  of 
five  per  cent.,  the  decrease  in  the  selling  value  of  the  land  amounts  to 
$112,931.40,  or  8.4  per  cent.  The  reduction  in  the  average  plot  would  be 
$926— from  $10,979  to  $10,053.* 

(b).     Rivington  Street  Section 

Increased    114 

Decreased    59 

173 

The  sample  of  173  parcels  from  the  Rivington  Street  section  is 
selected  from  one  of  the  most  congested  districts  in  the  city.  It  extends 
from  Stanton  to  Rivington  streets  and  from  Eldridge  to  Suffolk  streets. | 
Most  of  the  parcels  are  old-law  tenements.  The  average  parcel  is  as- 
sessed at  $36,856.  In  about  two-thirds  of  the  cases  (114  as  compared 
with  173)  the  imposition  of  the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax  on  buildings 
would  mean  heavier  taxes  for  these  parcels. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels,  arranged  according  to  the  efifect 
following  table  are  obtained  : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  the  Rivington  Street  Section 

Improvements  Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $1,020,000        $2,729,500        $3,749,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 1,123,500  1,540,000  2,663,500 

Total $2,143,500        $4,269,500        $6,413,000 

*  The  detailed  statistics  for  this  section  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra.,  pp.  145-147 . 
t  This   district   consists   of   assessment   blocks,    354,    411    and    416. 

37 


Applying  the  tax  rates  to  these  values  the  figures  presented  in  the 
following  table  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  prom  the  Rivington  Street  Section 
Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans 
TO  Untax  Buu^dings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 


Increase  oi 
Decrease 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements $18,113.57  $11,204.70        —$6,908.87  $291.92      —$17,821.65 

Land 48,471.55  59,967.39         -|-11,495.84  78,135.21         +29,663.66 

$66,585.12  $71,172.09         +$4,586.97  $78,427.13      +$11,842.01 

Gkoup  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements $19,951 .  56  $12,341 .  65        —$7.609 .  91  $321 .  55      —$19,630 .  01 

Land 

Total: 

Improvements. .  .  . 
Land 


27,347.94 

33,833.95 

+6,486.01 

+44,084.35 

+16.736.41 

$47,299.50 

$46,175.60 

—$1,123.90 

$44,405.90 

—$2,893.60 

$38,065.13 

$23,546.35 

—$14,518.78 

$613.47 

—$37,451.66 

75,819.49 

93.801.34 

+  17,981.85 

122,219.56 

+46,400.07 

$1 13,884.  ( 


$117,347. 


+  $3,463.07        $122,833.03         +$8,948.41 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  net  increase  in  taxes  under  the  plan  to 
halve  the  rate  on  buildings  is  $3,463.07,  or  $19.90  per  parcel.  The 
maximum  available  for  decreases  in  rents  is  $14,518.78,  or  $83.44  per 
building.  The  net  annual  returns  to  the  owners  of  the  plots  on  which 
the  tenements  stand  would  be  lessened  $17,981.85,  or  $103.34  per  plot. 
Capitalized,*  this  means  a  possible  decrease  in  land  values  of  $359,637, 
or  $2,067  per  plot.  The  average  plot  would  thus  decrease  in  selling  value 
from  $24,537  to  $22,470.t 

(c).     Houston  Street  Section 

Increased    70 

Decreased    30 


100 

The  one  hundred  parcels  lying  in  the  district  between  Avenue  A  and 
First  Avenue,  Houston  and  3rd  streets,  are,  again,  tenements  in  an  ex- 
tremely congested  quarter  of  the  lower  east  side.|  The  average  parcel 
is  assessed  at  $32,625  (improvements,  $12,443,  and  land,  $20,182).  In 
more  than  two-thirds  of  the  cases  (70  as  compared  with  100),  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  would  mean  greater  taxes  for  these 
tenements. 


•  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For   details   of   this   sample,   cf.  infra,   pp.  148-150. 

%  The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks   428,   429   and   430. 


The  table  which  follows  gives  the  assessed  values,  grouped  in  the 
usual  fashion : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Rivington  Street  Section 


Improvements  Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $463,800        $1,151,700        $1,615,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 780,500  866,500  1,647,000 

Total $1,244,300        $2,018,200        $3,262,500 

When  the  tax  rates  are  extended  against  these  values  the  following 
results  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable    by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  of  Houston  Street 

Section  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Levy 


$132.74        —$8,103.66 
32,968.79         -M2,516.45 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased; 

Improvements $8,236.40  $5,094.88        —$3,141.52 

Land 20,452.34  25,302.96  +4,850.62 

$28,688.74  $30,397.84         +81,709.10 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements $13,860.43  S8.573 .79        —$5,286.64 

Land 15.387.65  19,037.09  +3,649.44 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 


$33,101.53         +$4,412.79 


$223.38      —$13,637.05 
24,804.60  +9,416.95 


$29,248.08 

$27,610.88 

—$1,637.20 

$25,027.98 

—$4,220.10 

$22,096.83 

$13,668.67 

—$8,428.16 

$356 . 12 

—$21,740.71 

35,839.99 

44,340.05 

+8,500.06 

57.773.39 

+21.933.40 

$57,936.82  $58,008.72 


+$71.90 


+  $192.69 


The  net  increase  in  taxes  under  the  half-rate  plan  would  be  only 
$71.90.  This  is  because  the  decrease  upon  the  thirty  buildings  whose 
taxes  would  be  made  heavier  ($1,637.20)  is  so  great  as  practically  to 
cancel  the  increase  on  the  other  group  ($1,709.10).  The  reduction  in 
the  taxes  on  buildings,  the  maximum  available  for  the  reduction  of  rents, 
would  be  $8,428.16,  or  $84.28  per  building.  The  increase  in  land  tax 
would  be  $8,500.06,  a  diminution  in  the  annual  rent  return  to  the  owner 
of  the  average  plot  of  $85.00.  Capitalized,*  the  prospective  loss  in  land 
value  would  be  $170,001.20,  or  $1,700.01  per  plot.f 


(*)     Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

(t)     For  details  of  this  sample,  c/.  infra,  pp.  151-153. 


39 


(3).     Apartment  Sections 

(a).     Elevator  Apartment  Section 

Increased 0 

Decreased 35 

35 

A  section  of  Washington  Heights  lying  between  Broadway  and  the 
Hudson  River  and  between  177th  Street  and  181st  Street  was  selected 
as  the  field  for  investigating  the  probable  effects  of  the  plan  upon  high- 
class  elevator  apartment  property.*  In  this  district  there  are  thirty-five 
six-story  elevator  apartment  buildings,  all  of  which  have  been  built 
fairly  recently.  The  apartments,  which  are  of  various  sizes,  rent  for 
approximately  ten  dollars  per  room  per  month. 

If  the  plan  to  untax  the  buildings  were  adopted,  the  taxes  on  every 
one  of  these  pieces  of  property  would  be  materially  reduced.  Not  one 
has  a  high  enough  percentage  of  land  value  to  bring  the  parcel  ratio  near 
the  standard  composite  ratio. 

The  assessed  valuation  of  the  land  on  which  these  apartments  stand 
is  $2,213,000.  The  buildings  are  assessed  for  $5,165,000.  Applying  the 
rates,  the  amounts  given  in  the  following  table  are  obtained.  They 
represent  the  total  taxes  payable  under  the  present  system  and  under 
the  proposed  plans. 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Elevator  Apartments  in  Washington  Heights 

Section 

Improvements  Land  Total 

Present  system— Levy $91,722. 14  $39,299. 34  $131,021. 48 

Rate  on  improvements  one-half— Levy    ..  56,737.55  48,619.83  105,357.38 

Increase  or  decrease —34,984.59  -|-9,320.49  —25,664.10 

Rate  on  improvements  one  one-hundredth 

Levy 1,478. 22  63,349. 78  64,828. 00 

Increase  or  decrease —90,243. 92  -|-24,050. 44  —66,193. 48 

The  decreases  here  would  be  very  great.  If  the  full  plan  were 
adopted  the  taxes  on  these  parcels  would  be  reduced  by  more  than  one- 
half.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  it  would  mean  a  decrease  of 
twenty  per  cent. 

The  average  apartment  in  this  sample  section  is  assessed  at  $147,571 
and  the  average  value  of  the  plot  at  $63,229.  The  taxes  at  present  on 
this  parcel  amount  to  $3,743.47.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved, 
the  parcel  would  be , charged  with  $3,010.21  and  if  the  full  plan  were 
adopted,  with  only  $1,852.24.  The  decrease  in  the  first  case  would  be 
$733.26  and   in  the  second,  $1,891.23. 

If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved,  there  would  be  a  reduction  of 
$34,984.59  in  the  tax  on  buildings,  which  under  certain  conditions  might 
be  available  for  the  reduction  of  rents.     This  means  a  thousand  dollars 


The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks  2176  and  2177. 

40 


($999.84)  per  apartment  per  year.  At  the  same  time  the  owners  of  the 
plots  would  suffer  a  reduction  in  their  income  from  the  land  of  $9,320.49. 
Assuming  an  interest  rate  of  five  per  cent,  and  capitalizing  this  amount, 
$186,409.80  is  obtained  as  representing  the  probable  depreciation  in  the 
selling  value  of  the  plots.  If  this  be  true  the  average  plot  would  decrease 
$5,325.97  in  value— from  $63,229  to  $57,903.  This  decrease  amounts  to 
8.4  per  cent.* 

(b).     "Walk-up"  Apartment  Section 

Increased 0 

Decreased 44 

44 

The  district  bounded  by  Broadway,  178th  Street,  Amsterdam  Ave- 
nue and  174th  Street  contains  forty-four  five-story  "walk-up"  apartment 
buildings.f  An  examination  of  the  ratios  of  buildings  and  land  values 
shows  that  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  elevator  apartments,  reductions 
would  be  made  in  the  taxes  of  every  apartment  house.  The  proportion 
of  building  value  to  total  value  is  not  as  great  as  is  the  case  in  the  typical 
elevator  apartment  and  the  advantages  which  would  accrue  if  buildings 
were  untaxed  would  therefore  not  be  so  great  either  absolutely  or  pro- 
portionally. 

The  total  assessed  value  of  the  44  buildings  is  $1,632,000  and  of  the 
plots  on  which  they  stand,  $1,034,000.  The  taxes  paid  at  present  by 
these  parcels,  and  the  changes  which  would  result  were  the  proposed 
plans  adopted  are  shown  in  the  following  statement : 

Taxes  Payable   by  Owners  of   "Walk-up"   Apartments  in  Washington 
Heights  Section 

Improvements  Land  Total 

Present  system— Levy $28,981 .  71  $18,362. 19  $47,343. 90 

Rate  on  improvements  one-half— Levy  .. .        17,927.52  22,717.08  40,644.60 

Increase  or  decrease —11,054. 19  -f4,354. 89  —6,699. 30 

Rate  on  improvements  one  one-hundredth 

Levy 467. 08  29,599. 49  30,066. 57 

Increase  or  decrease —28,514. 63  -1-11,237. 30  —17,277. 33 


The  adoption  of  the  full  plan  would  mean  that  taxes  on  these  apart- 
ments would  be  reduced  approximately  one-third.  Making  the  rate  on 
buildings  one-half  the  rate  on  land  would  mean  a  reduction  of  nearly 
seven  thousand  dollars  or  approximately  fourteen  per  cent. 

The  average  "walk-up"  apartment  building  in  this  section  is  assessed 
at  $37,091,  and  it  stands  on  a  plot  assessed  at  $23,500.    Taxes  at  present 


*  Detailed  information    in    regard    to   this   section    may    be   found    in   an    appendix.      Cf.    infra, 
p.  153. 

t  This  territory  consists  of  assessment  blocks  2131,  2132  and  2133. 

41 


on  such  a  parcel  are  $1,076.  With  the  rate  on  buildings  halved,  they 
would  be  $923.74,  a  reduction  of  $152.26.  The  adoption  of  the  full  plan 
would  increase  the  reduction  to  $392.67.  The  amount  payable  would 
then  be  only  $683.33. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  in  halving  the  rate  on  improvements  the  taxes 
on  the  structures  would  be  decreased  $11,054.19  and  this  represents  the 
amount  available  under  certain  circumstances  for  reductions  in  rents. 
At  the  same  time  the  net  annual  return  to  the  owners  of  the  land  on 
which  the  apartments  are  built  would  be  diminished  $4,354.89.  With 
the  interest  rate  at  five  per  cent,  the  depreciation  in  the  selling  value 
would  be  $87,097.80.  The  average  parcel  might  be  expected  under  the 
assumptions  to  decrease  $1,979.50  from  $23,500  to  $21,521.* 

(4).     Sections  of  Single  Family  Houses 

(a).     Riverside  Drive  Section 

Increased 9 

Decreased 42 

51 

The  section  of  Riverside  Drive  included  in  the  half-mile  between 
72nd  and  82nd  streets  is  one  of  the  choicest  residential  districts  in  the 
city.  With  the  exception  of  one  apartment  house,  the  entire  stretch  is 
used  for  single  family  dwellings.  Among  them  is  one  of  the  show  places 
of  the  city,  the  magnificent  residence  of  Charles  M.  Schwab.  In  all 
there  are  fifty-one  houses  on  this  section  of  the  drive.  The  adoption  of 
the  proposed  plan  would  reduce  the  taxes  on  all  except  nine  parcels. 
Among  the  nine  is  the  Schwab  property,  which  it  will  be  recalled,  stands 
in  a  park  approximately  two  hundred  by  four  hundred  feet  in  size.  Even 
when  this  large  amount  of  land  is  used  the  increase  in  taxes  amounts 
only  to  $17.58,  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings  and  to 
$54.26,  under  the  plan  to  reduce  the  rate  on  buildings  to  one  per  cent,  of 
that  on  land.  In  other  words,  the  Schwab  property  almost  coincides  with 
the  hypothetical  type  of  the  standard  composite  ratio.  Parcels,  there- 
fore, whose  taxes  would  be  increased  contain  a  larger  share  of  land  value 
than  is  the  case  with  the  Schwab  property. 

In  order  to  determine  the  magnitude  of  the  readjustments  which 
would  be  caused  by  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plans,  the  assessed 
values  of  the  property  have  been  separated  into  two  groups,  Group  A 
consisting  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased,  and  Group 
B  of  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased.  The  assessed  values  thus 
arranged  are  as  follows: 


The  details  for  this  section  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,   p.  154. 

42 


Assessed  Values  of  Real  Estate  in  Riverside  Drive  Section 


Improvements  Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $769,000 

Group  B: 


$1,250,000        $2,019,000 


Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 

.  .       1,061,000 

1,202,500 

2,263,500 

Total                

. .     $1,830,000 

$2,452,500 

$4,282,500 

Applying  the  tax  rates  the  following  results  are  obtained  : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  in  Riverside  Drive  Section  Under  the  Present  System 
and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

$35,854.21 
40,196.14 

$35,910.09 
38,074.13 

+  $55.88 
—2,122.01 

$36,002.84 
34,726.66 

-|-$148.62 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased 

—5,469.48 

Total 

$76,050.35 

$73,984.22 

—$2,066.13 

$70,729.50 

—$5,320.86 

To  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  increase  the  taxes  of  a 
few  owners  the  shght  amount  of  $55.88  while  it  would  decrease  the  taxes 
of  other  owners  by  $2,122.01,  the  net  reduction  in  taxes  amounting-  to 
$2,066.13  annually.  The  adoption  of  the  full  plan  would  involve  a 
decrease  in  the  contribution  from  this  section  of  $5,320.86. 

In  the  table  which  follows  the  parcels  are  classified  according  to 
value  and  according  to  the  effects  of  the  proposed  plans : 


Parcels  in  the  Riverside  Drive  Section  Classified  According  to  Value  and  the 
Effect  Upon  Them  of  the  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Number  of  Parcels 


Value  of  Parcels 


Increased        Decreased 


Less  than  $40,000.. 
$40,000  to  $49,999 . 
$50,000  to  $59,999 . 
$60,000  to  $69,999 . 
$70,000  to  $79,999 . 
Over  $80,000 


42 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  median  in  the  case  of  the  parcels  whose 
taxes  would  be  increased  is  decidedly  lower  than  that  among  the  parcels 


43 


[^u/h  /nulic. 


u^Hin\  c  /'"/u/i   ■'  5  y^^'^yyc 


whose  taxes  would  be  decreased.*  That  is,  the  parcels  in  this  section 
whose  taxes  would  be  raised  are  in  general  not  the  more  expensive  but 
rather  the  less  expensive  ones.  This  is  a  phenomenon  which  is  found  to 
recur  often  in  the  Manhattan  samples. f 

(b).     Fifth  Avenue  Section 

Increased 95 

Decreased 32 

127 

The  eflfects  of  the  partial  exemption  of  improvements  in  the  Fifth 
Avenue  district  would  be  almost  exactly  the  reverse  of  the  effects  in  the 
Riverside  Drive  section  just  examined.  Curiously  enough  along  Fifth 
Avenue  most  of  the  single  family  residences  would  pay  greater,  not 
smaller,  taxes,  as  was  the  case  along  the  drive.  In  1914  there  were  127 
parcels  of  this  character  on  the  Avenue  between  60th  and  93rd  Streets, 
facing  the  park.  This  is  probably  the  choicest  residential  section  in  the 
city.  Here  are  the  town  houses  of  Carnegie,  ex-Senator  Clark,  Astor 
and  J.  B.  Duke.  Ninety-five  of  the  146  parcels  would  be  charged  with 
higher  taxes,  if  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  were  adopted.  Thirty-two 
would  pay  smaller  taxes. 

The  explanation  of  this  situation  is  not  difficult  to  discover.  The 
building  value  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  is  a  much  smaller  part  of 
the  total  value  of  the  parcel  than  is  the  case  in  the  standard  composite 
ratio  for  Manhattan  (38.34:61.66)  because  of  the  limitation  on  the  type 
of  building  which  may  be  placed  upon  this  land.  The  enormous  land 
values  in  this  section  are  due  to  its  desirability  as  sites  for  the  private 
residences  of  the  very  wealthy.  Great  emphasis  is  placed  upon  being 
located  in  this  particular  section.  To  place  an  improvement  on  the  land 
which  would  bear  the  ordinary  relationship  to  the  value  of  the  land  is 
a  difficult  task,  if  the  improvement  is  to  be  a  single-family  residence  and 
not  a  tall  building  of  some  sort.  Only  by  covering  the  entire  plot  and 
by  using  the  most  expensive  building  materials  can  enough  building 
value  be  secured  to  bring  it  above  the  typical  proportion. 

The  most  expensive  house  on  Fifth  Avenue  is  that  of  ex-Senator 
Clark.  It  was  assessed  in  1914  at  three  millions.  The  land  was  assessed 
at  one  million.  This  is  an  extreme  case,  for  more  building  value  has  been 
put  upon  this  plot  than  upon  any  plot  of  like  value  in  the  section.  The 
taxes  on  this  parcel  would  be  reduced  $16,108.50,  if  the  rate  on  buildings 
were  halved.  If  the  rate  were  reduced  to  one  one-hundredth  of  the  rate 
on  land,  the  Clark  property  would  pay  only  $29,484.80  in  annual  taxes. 


•  The  presence  of  one  parcel,  the  Schwab  property,  with  an  assessed  value   many  times  that  of 
any  other  parcel,  unfits  the  material  for  the  use  of  the  simple  arithmetic  average  in  this  case. 
tThe  detailed  data  for  the  section  is  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  p.  155. 

44 


As  the  parcel  now  pays  $71,033.60  this  would  mean  a  reduction  of  $41,- 
548.80,  more  than  one-half. 

Other  parcels  on  which  taxes  would  be  reduced  include  the  resi- 
dences of  J.  B.  Duke  and  E.  H.  Gary. 

On  the  other  hand  the  taxes  would  be  increased  considerably  on 
several  parcels.  The  Carnegie  property  shows  the  most  important 
changes  in  this  direction.  The  taxes  would  increase  $4,679.57  under  the 
plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings,  and  $12,077.83  under  the  plan  to  elim- 
inate all  except  one  per  cent.  The  taxes  at  present  on  this  parcel  are 
$41,732.24. 

The  average  value  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased 
is  $436,895  and  that  of  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  is  $469,344. 
The  figures  are  very  close  but  it  will  be  noted  that  the  average  is  a  little 
higher  in  the  case  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased.  The 
table  which  follows  classifies  the  parcels  according  to  value  and  accord- 
ing to  the  effects  of  the  proposed  plans. 

Classification  of  Parcels  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  Section  According  to  Value  and 

According  to  the  Effects  of  the  Adoption  of  the  Plan  to  Untax 

Buildings 


Value  of  Parcel 


$100,000  to  $199,999 . 
$200,000  to  $299,999 . 
$300,000  to  $399,999. 
$400,000  to  $499,999. 
$500,000  to  $599,999. 
$600,000  to  $699,999 . 
$700,000  to  $799,999. 
$800,000  to  $899,999. 
More  than  $900,000. . 


Number  of  Parcels 

Increased 

Decreased 

13 

3 

34 

12 

10 

9 

13 

4 

9 

1 

3 

1 

4 

0 

2 

0 

7 

2 

95  32 


From  these  figures  it  is  evident  that  in  this  section  the  median, 
both  for  the  parcels  whose  taxes  will  be  increased  and  those  whose  taxes 
will  be  decreased  is  at  about  the  same  value. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  real  estate  in  the  Fifth  Avenue  section, 
grouped  according  to  the  effects  of  the  proposed  change,  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Fifth  Avenue  Section 


Improvements  Land  Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased...     $10,088,000        $31,417,000        $41,505,000 
Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. . .         7,873,000  7,146,000  15,019,000 


Total $17,961,000        $38,563,000        $56,524,000 

45 


Applying  the  tax  rates  to  these  values  the  following  resiilts  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  in  The  Fifth  Avenue  Section  Under  the  Present 
System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present               Rate   on   Improvements  Rate   on   Improvements 

System                             One-Half  One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or  Increase  or 

Levy                     Levy                 Decrease  Levy                 Decrease 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be   increased $737,062.39        $801,051.31       -t-$63,988.92        $902,236.51     -f$165,174.12 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be   decreased 266,713.41  243,483.24        —23,230.17  206,816.07        —59,897.34 

Total $1,003,775.80     $1,044,534.55      -|-$40,758.75     $1,109,052.58    +$105,276.78 


It  appears  that  if  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved,  the  taxes  on 
certain  parcels  would  increase  $63,988.92,  while  those  on  other  parcels 
would  decrease  $23,230.17,  making  the  net  increase  for  the  district  $40,- 
758.75.  In  case  the  full  plan  were  adopted  the  net  increase  would  be 
$105,276.76.* 

(c).     Section  of  Side  Streets  East  of  Fifth  Avenue 

Increased 471 

Decreased 113 

584 

Along  the  side  streets  east  of  Fifth  Avenue  between  60th  and  93rd 
streets  are  located  a  large  number  of  single-family  dwellings  of  a  very 
high  type.  This  is  the  region  where  a  person  who  desires  a  residence  in 
Manhattan  which  would  cost,  for  land  and  house,  approximately  one 
hundred  thousand  dollars  is  likely  to  locate.  Although  most  of  the 
houses  are  far  from  new,  the  region  as  a  whole  cannot  be  said  to  be  far 
advanced  in  the  transition  stage  toward  another  use,  such  as  for  busi- 
ness or  apartment  purposes.  This  statement  does  not  hold  true  for  the 
margin  along  Madison  Avenue.  Almost  all  of  the  streets  in  the  district, 
however,  are  considered  proper  sites  for  the  construction  of  new  resi- 
dences. 

In  this  selected  section  there  were  at  the  time  of  assessment  in 
1914,  584  parcels,  improved  by  one-family  houses.  An  examination  of 
the  relative  value  of  building  to  land  in  these  parcels  reveals  the  fact 
that  approximately  four-fifths  of  the  parcels  (471)  would  be  charged 
with  heavier  taxes  under  the  plan  to  untax  buildings. 


*  The   detailed   information    for   the    Fifth   Avenue   section   is    given   in   an   appendix.      Cf.   infra, 
pp.  156-158. 

46 


The  following  table  classifies  the  parcels  by  streets: 

Number  of  Parcels  (a)  in  the  Side  Streets  Off  Fifth  Avenue  Whose  Taxes  Would 

Be  Increased  and  Decreased  in  Consequence  of  the  Adoption  of 

the  Proposal  to  Untax  Buildings 


Increased       Decreased 


62d 

63d 

64th 

65th 

66th 

67th 

68th 

69th 

70th 

71st 

72d 

73d 

74th 

75th 

76th 

77th 

78th 

79th 

80th 

81st 

82d 

83d 

84th 

85th 

86th 

87th 

88th 

89th 

90th 

91st 

92d 

93d 


7 

0 

16 

3 

17 

5 

18 

3 

19 

3 

16 

4 

17 

2 

18 

4 

11 

2 

14 

1 

11 

6 

9 

5 

16 

1 

16 

6 

27 

0 

20 

1 

21 

6 

21 

1 

15 

3 

13 

9 

17 

6 

17 

6 

7 

13 

18 

3 

12 

4 

11 

0 

9 

4 

0 

2 

1 

3 

0 

5 

2 

2 

2 

0 

26 

0 

27 

0 

471 


113 


(a)  Single-family  dwellings  only. 

The  results  are  on  the  whole  fairly  regular.  The  parcels  whose 
taxes  would  be  decreased  are  scattered  evenly  through  the  section.  The 
assessment  rolls  show  that  in  the  few  blocks  where  the  number  of  de- 
creases is  large,  such  as  82nd,  87th,  88th,  89th  and  90th  streets,  apartment 
houses  are  also  present.    These  are  for  the  most  part  old  buildings. 

An  interesting  point  becomes  evident  when  the  parcels  are  grouped 
according  to  their  value.  By  referring  to  the  table,  it  will  be  seen  that, 
as  the  value  of  the  properties  increases,  there  is  a  regular  progression 
in  the  percentage  of  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. 


47 


Increases  and  Decreases  in  Taxes  Among  the  Single-Family  Dwellings  in  the 

Section  of  Side  Streets  East  of  Fifth  Avenue  Grouped  According  to 

THE  Value  of  Properties 


Value  of  Parcels 


Number  of  Parcels 


Percentage 


Increased       Decreased       Increased       Decreased 


Less  than  $50,000 65 

$50,000  to    $99,999   246 

$100,000  to  $149,999 109 

$150,000  to  $199,999 31 

More  than  $200,000 20 


100 
94 

74 
53 
38 


In  other  words  the  situation  here  is  similar  to  that  in  the  sky-scraper 
section:  the  more  expensive  the  parcel  the  larger  the  proportion  of  building 
value.     The  two  graphs  which  follow  may  aid  in  making  this  plan: 


PARCELS  WHOSE  TAXES  WOULD  BE  INCREASED  AND  DECREASED 
AMONG  THE  SINGLE-FAMILY  DWELLINGS  IN  THE  SECTION  OF 
SIDE  STREETS  EAST  OF  FIFTH  AVENUE  GROUPED  ACCORDING 
TO  THE  VALUE   OF  THE   PROPERTY 


lso,ooo 

i  99,999 


^100,000      $150,000 
I        TO  ^       TO 

^149,999     ,J  139.999 


OVER 
i  200,000 


VALUE  OF  PARCELS. 


48 


PERCENTAGES  OF  PARCELS  WHOSE  TAXES  WOULD  BE  INCREASED 
AND  DECREASED  AMONG  THE  SINGLE-FAMILY  DWELLINGS  IN 
THE  SECTION  OF  SIDE  STREETS  EAST  OF  FIFTH  AVENUE,  GROUPED 
ACCORDING   TO   THE   VALUE   OF   THE   PROPERTY 


INCREASED 


DECREASED 


100 


0      $5(^000    $100,000  $150,000      OVER 
TO         TO  TO  TO 

i49t999  $99,999  $149,999  5199.993  $ZOO,000 

VALUE  OF  PARCELS. 


The  first  shows  the  number  of  parcels.  It  will  be  noted  that  by  far 
the  greater  number  of  the  parcels  on  which  the  taxes  will  be  increased 
fall  in  the  lower  two  classes,  viz.,  below  $100,000,  whereas  almost  all 
of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  will  be  increased  are  assessed  for  more  than 
that  sum. 

In  order  to  determine  amounts  involved  in  the  readjustments  in 
taxes  among  the  owners  in  this  section  the  assessed  values  of  the  parcels 
whose  taxes  would  be  increased  were  separated  from  those  of  the  par- 
cels whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  with  the  following  results : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Section  of  Side  Streets  East  of  Fifth  Avenue 


Improvements 


Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased. 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. 


$9,430,500        $34,575,000        $44,005,500 


.902,500 


10,067,500 


18,970,000 


Total $18,333,000        $44,642,500        $62,975,500 


49 


It  will  be  noticed  that  these  figures  confirm  the  point  already  made 
that  on  the  whole  the  decreases  are  among  the  more  valuable  parcels. 
Whereas  the  number  of  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  consti- 
tute but  one-fifth  of  the  total  number,  they  make  nearly  one-third  of  the 
total  value. 

Extending  the  rates  against  these  values,  the  taxes  payable  by  the 
two  groups  under  the  proposed  plans  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners   in   Section  of  Side   Streets  East  of  Fifth  Avenue 
Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present  Rate   on   Improvements              Rate   on   Improvements 

System  One-Half                                One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or  Increase  or 

Levy  Levy                 Decrease                 Levy                 Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased $781,467.27  $863,210.25      +$81,742.98        $992,449.87    -}- $21 0,982. 60 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased 336,876.85  318,977.94       —17,898.91         290,742.18       ^6,134.67 

Total $1,118,344.12  $1,182,188.19      +$63,844.07     $1,283,192.05    +$164,847.93 


The  foregoing  table  indicates  that  the  houses  in  this  section  as  a 
group  would  pay  approximately  six  per  cent,  greater  taxes  if  the  rate 
on  buildings  were  halved  and  approximately  fifteen  per  cent,  higher  taxes 
if  the  rate  on  improvements  were  made  one  one-hundredth  of  that  on 
land.  The  decreases  in  the  taxes  upon  certain  parcels  amount  in  both 
cases  to  roughly  one-fifth  of  the  increases  upon  certain  other  parcels. 

The  average  of  the  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  this  section  is 
$107,835  (land  $76,443  and  building  $31,392).  The  taxes  at  present  on 
a  parcel  of  this  type  are  $1,914.98.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved 
the  taxes  would  be  $2,024.30,  or  $109.32  greater  than  before.  If  the 
full  plan  were  adopted  the  taxes  would  be  increased  $282.28  (to  $2,- 
197.26.)* 

(d).     Section  of  Side  Streets  off  Riverside  Drive 

1914  Increased    71 

Decreased    150 

221 

1915  Increased    159 

Decreased     58 

217 

The  side  streets  off  Riverside  Drive  between  82nd  and  88th  streets, 
and  between  the  drive  and  West  End  Avenue   form  a  sample  of  a 


'The  detailed  data  for  this  section  will  be  found  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  159-168. 

50 


district  which  until  fairly  recently  has  been  a  stronghold  of  the  single 
family  dwelling  of  high  type.  The  parcels  in  this  region  are  assessed 
for  the  most  part  at  figures  between  twenty  and  thirty  thousand  dollars. 
Lately  apartments  have  begun  to  crowd  rapidly  into  the  district  until 
in  1915  there  were  not  less  than  forty-three  buildings  of  this  type  on 
these  streets.*  Such  a  movement  has  the  effect  of  detracting  from  the 
desirability  of  the  region  as  sites  for  private  residences  and  as  a  con- 
sequence most  of  the  owners  are  in  full  retreat,  the  region  being  thickly 
strewn  with  signs  advertising  the  property  for  sale. 

The  assessment  data  for  the  two  years,  1914  and  1915,  when  com- 
pared, show  very  plainly  the  nature  of  the  change  which  is  taking  place. 
In  1914  the  ratio  of  building  to  land  value  in  the  various  plots  was  such 
that,  had  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  been  adopted  then,  approximately 
two-thirds  of  the  parcels  would  have  received  lower  taxes.  But  in  1915, 
conditions  had  so  changed,  land  values  having  increased  as  compared 
with  building  values,  that  the  situation  is  exactly  reversed.  If  the 
plan  had  been  imposed  in  1915,  two-thirds  of  the  parcels  would  have 
paid  greater  instead  of  lower  taxes. 

The  assessed  values  for  the  two  years,  grouped  in  the  usual  manner, 
are : 


Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Section  of  Side  Streets  off 
Riverside  Drive  (a) 


Improvements  Land  Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased: 

1914 

1915 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased: 

1914 

1915 


Total,  1914. 
Total,  1915. 


$578,800 
1,106,300 

$1,350,000 
3,250,700 

$1,928,800 
4,357.000 

2,289,500 
799,200 

2,419,500 
107,090 

4,709,000 
906,290 

$2,868,300 
1,905,500 

$3,769,500 
3,357,790 

$6,637,800 
5,263,290 

(a)  The  number  of  parcels  is  not  the  same  in  the  two  years,  several  houses  having  been  torn  down 
during  the  intervening  period,  and  therefore  the  amounts  are  not  strictly  comparable. 

Applying  the  tax  rates,  the  results  given  in  the  table  on  page  52  are 
obtained. 

It  will  be  noted  that  under  the  half-tax  plan  and  on  the  basis  of 
the  1914  valuations,  the  total  net  taxes  in  this  section  would  decrease 
slightly  ($3,552.13),  whereas  on  the  basis  of  the  1915  valuation  the  net 


*  This  number  includes  the  buildings  situated  on  the  corners  even  when  facing  on  the  drive  or  West 
End  Avenue. 

51 


Q 

u 

Q 

^_, 

> 

O 

v5- 
1 

(5 

H 

b 

3 

> 

§ 

m 

-o 

[#) 

« 

UJ 

W 

^ 

1 

< 

CO    o    12 


02  ^ 


o  ^ 


M    O 


05    to 

si:? 


t^   IN 

IN   00 


CO    t^ 


s  if 

1 1  i 


^   R 


t^  in 

00  lo 

IN  O 

IN  O 


CO   o 


O    05 

lO  o 


IN    ■^ 

a>  o 


00  ■* 

lO    CD 


t.    13 


^ :  ^ 

o  a 


1 
1 

1 

s 

- 

2 

1 

—I  in  t~ 


^  o 

CO    t~ 

o  m 


^        SI' 


V  0) 

si 


S3 

0!  o 


52 


taxes  would  be  increased  somewhat,  ($1,235.29).  According  to  the  1914 
figures  the  increase  in  the  land  tax  would  amount  to  $15,876.01.  Capital- 
ized,* this  amounts  to  $317,520.20,  which  represents  the  probable  de- 
preciation in  land  values  due  to  the  adoption  of  the  plan.f 

(e).     Section  of  Side  Streets  West  of  Central  Park 

1914  Increased    165 

Decreased    129 

294 

1915  Increased    283 

Decreased    11 

294 

This  sample  consists  of  294  single-family  houses  situated  between 
Central  Park  West  and  Columbus  Avenue,  90th  and  95th  streets.  Here, 
as  in  the  side  streets  east  of  Riverside  Drive,  apartments  are  pushing  in 
with  the  result  that  land  values  are  rising  while  building  values  of  the 
single-family  houses  are  falling.  In  1914,  when  the  average  parcel  in  the 
sample  was  assessed  at  $20,861,  the  imposition  of  the  plan  to  untax 
buildings  would  have  increased  the  taxes  of  165  parcels  and  decreased 
those  of  129  parcels.  The  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  aver- 
age 18,685  in  value,  while  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  average 
$23,628,  another  example  of  the  tendency  often  noted  in  the  Manhattan 
sections.  So  rapidly  are  changes  taking  place  in  the  district,  however, 
that  by  1915  the  number  of  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  had 
swollen  from  165  to  283,  while  those  in  the  other  group  had  shrunk  from 
129  to  eleven. 

By  referring  to  the  table  of  assessed  values  for  1914  which  follows, 
it  will  be  seen  that,  despite  the  disparity  in  numbers  between  the  two 
groups,  the  assessed  values  are  approximately  the  same. 


Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Section  of  Side  Streets  West  of 
Central  Park 


Improvements 

Land 

Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased. 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased . 

.  .      $950,500 
. .     1,322,500 

$2,133,500 
1,726,500 

$3,084,000 
3,049,000 

Total 

.  .  $2,273,000 

$3,860,000 

$6,133,000 

*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  The  details  for   this  section  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.   169-172. 


Applying  the  tax  rates  to  the  assessed  values  the  results  given  in 
the  following  table  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Section  of  Side  Streets 

West  of  Central  Park  Under  the  Present  System,  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Levy 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements $16,879.36  $10,441.24        —$6,438.12  $273.03      —$16,606.33 

Land 37,887.55  46,873.21  -1-8,985.66  61,074.00         -|-23,186.45 

$54,766.91  $57,314.45         +$2,547.54  $61,347.03         +$6,580.12 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements $23,485.48  $14,527.66        —$8,957.82  $378.50      —$23,106.98 

Land 30,659.88  37,931.38  +7,271.50  49,423.13         +18,763.25 

$54,145.36  $52,459.04        —$1,686.32  $49,801.63        —$4,343.73 

Total: 

Improvements $40,364.84  $24,968.90      —$15,395.94  $651.53      —$39,713.31 

Land 68,547.43  84,804.59         +16,257.16  110,497.13         +41,949.70 


$108,912.27        $109,773.49 


+  $861.22        $111,148.66         +$2,236.39 


The  increase  in  the  taxes  upon  the  larger  number  of  the  parcels  is 
almost  balanced  by  the  decreases  on  the  smaller  number  of  more  val- 
uable parcels.  Thus  if  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  the  taxes  on 
one  group  of  parcels  would  be  increased  $2,547,54,  while  those  upon  an- 
other group  would  be  decreased  $1,686.32.* 

(f).     Section  of  Side  Streets  East  of  Lexington  Avenue 

Increased 107 

Decreased 47 

154 

This  section  consists  of  154  houses  located  between  Lexington  and 
Third  avenues  on  the  following  streets :  70th,  71st,  72nd,  73rd,  74th,  78th 
and  79th.  In  some  of  the  streets  in  this  section  there  is  considerable 
grouping  of  ownership,  indicating  the  change  which  is  going  on  from 
the  use  of  the  land  for  residences  to  its  use  for  apartment  purposes. 
Already  a  number  of  apartments  have  been  built  and  some  of  the  old 
residences  converted  into  apartments,  but  all  these  have  been  eliminated 
from  the  sample.  Certainly  a  few  and  probably  a  considerable  number 
of  the  houses  in  the  sample  are  used  as  rooming  and  boarding  houses. 


The  details  of  this  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.   infra,  pp.  173-177. 


54 


The  average  parcel  in  the  section  is  assessed  at  $25,305.  In  the  case 
of  107  of  the  154  parcels  the  tax  would  increase  under  the  proposed 
plans  to  untax  buildings.  The  average  value  of  these  buildings  is  $20,- 
178,  while  that  of  the  47  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  is 
$36,979.  This  shows  that  the  same  situation  is  here  present  as  that 
which  was  found  in  so  many  other  Manhattan  sections,  vis.,  that  the 
more  valuable  parcels  in  the  group  would  receive  decreases  which  are 
larger  both  absolutely  and  proportionally  as  compared  with  the  less  ex- 
pensive parcels. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  in  the  usual  fashion,  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Section  of  Selected  Side  Streets  East  of  Lexington 

Avenue 


Improvements 

Land 

Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  wotild  be  increased.  .  .      $578,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. . .        872,000 

$1,570,000 
866,000 

$2,148,500 
1,738,000 

Total $1,450,500 

$2,436,000 

$3,886,500 

The  larger  value  per  parcel  among  the  houses  in  Class  B  once  more 
becomes  apparent. 

Extending  the  tax  rates  against  the  values  in  the  table  given  above, 
the  following  results  are  obtained : 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Section  of  Selected  Side  Streets  East 
OF  Lexington  Avenue  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 
Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 

Rate   on   Improvements 

Rate   on   Improvements 

System 

One-Half 

One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  woiild 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

$10,273.23 

$6,354.82 

—$3,918.41 

$165.57 

—$10,107.66 

Land 

27,880.69 

34,493.06 

+6,612.37 

44,943.13 

+17,062.44 

$38,153.92 

$40,847.88 

+  $2,693.96 

$45,108.70 

+  $6,954.78 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

$15,485.32 

$9,578.92 

—$5,906.40 

$249.57 

—$15,235.75 

Land 

15,378.77 

19,026.11 

+3,647.34 

24,790.29 

+9,411.52 

$30,864.09 

$28,605.03 

—$2,259.06 

$25,039.86 

—$5,824.23 

Total: 

Improvements 

$25,758.55 

$15,933.74 

—$9,824.81 

$415.14 

—$25,343.41 

Land 

43,259.46 

53,519.17 

+10,259.71 

69,733.42 

+26,473.96 

$69,018.01 

$69,452.91 

+  $434.90 

$70,148.56 

+$1,130.55 

55 


It  will  be  noted  that  the  net  change  would  be  very  slight,  there  being 
only  an  increase  of  $434.90  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings. 
This  amounts  to  $2.82  per  parcel.  The  decreases  on  the  fewer  more 
expensive  parcels  (Group  B)  almost  counterbalances  the  increases  on 
the  many  less  expensive  parcels  (Group  A).* 

(g).     Section  in  Washington  Square  District 

Increased    126 

Decreased    0 

126 

This  section  consists  of  126  single  family  dwellings  situated  on  9th, 
10th  and  11th  streets  between  Fifth  and  Sixth  avenues.  Most  of  the 
houses  are  old  and  not  less  than  fifteen  of  the  number  are  used  as  room- 
ing houses.  The  assessed  value  of  the  average  parcel  is  $25,218. 
Every  parcel  of  the  126  would  pay  higher  taxes  if  the  plan  to  untax 
buildings  were  adopted. 

The  assessed  values  for  the  group  of  parcels  are  improvements 
$518,300,  land  $2,660,800  and  total  $3,179,100.  Applying  the  tax  rates, 
the  figures  presented  in  the  following  table  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  the  Washington  Square 

District,  Under  the  Present  System,  and  Under  the  Proposed 

Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 


Levy 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Levy 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 


$9,204.18 
47,251.55 


$5,693.53 
58,458.04 


—$3,510.65 
-1-11,206.49 


$148.34 
76,168.59 


—$9,055.84 
+28,917.04 


$56,455.73  $64,151.67        +$7,695.84  $76,316.93      +$19,861.20 

It  will  be  seen  that,  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate,  there  would 
be  a  net  increase  in  taxes  on  these  parcels  of  $7,695.84  or  $61.08  per 
parcel.  There  would  be  a  decrease  in  the  net  annual  return  to  the 
owners  of  the  land  of  $11,206,49  or  $88.94  per  lot.  Capitalized,-j-  this 
sum  amounts  to  $1,778.80  which  represents  the  probable  decrease  in 
the  selling  value  of  the  average  plot,  which  is  now  assessed  at  $21,1 17.| 


*The  details  for  the  sample  are   given  in  an  appendix.      Cf.  infra,  pp.  178-180. 

•J-  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

J  The  details  of  this  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  181-182. 


56 


(h).     Mount  Morris  Park  Section 

Increased 204 

Decreased 191 

395 

The    sing-le-family    dwellings    in    the    somewhat    irregular    district 
bounded  roughly  by  118th  Street,  Seventh  Avenue,   124th  Street  and 
Mount  Morris  Avenue,  are  of  an  unpretentious  type.     Practically  all  of 
the  parcels  are  assessed  at  sums  between  ten  and  thirty  thousand  dollars. 
That  the  property  in  this  region  is  about  to  be  diverted  to  a  different 
use  is  evident  from  the  following  statement  of  Tax  Commissioner  Purdy: 
"An  inspection  of  the  names  of  the  owners  shows   that  the 
gathering  of  plottage  is  going  on  in  this  section,  and  in  view  of  the 
building  of  tenement  houses  immediately  south  of  Mount  Morris 
Park  it  seems  clear  that  tenement  houses  will  at  no  distant  day  in- 
trude into  these  residential  blocks.     With  the  building  of  the  first 
tenement  house  on  a  block,  the  value  of  the  remaining  houses  de- 
clines greatly." 

The  one-family  houses  situated  on  twenty-two  blocks  front  were 
selected  for  analysis.  In  all  there  were  395  residences.  It  was  found  that 
in  almost  all  of  these  parcels  the  ratio  of  building  to  land  value  was  very 
close  to  the  standard  composite  ratio  for  Manhattan.  In  approximately 
one-half  of  the  cases  the  ratio  was  above  the  standard  and  in  the  other 
cases  it  was  below.  The  table  which  follows  shows  the  number  of  par- 
cels whose  taxes  would  be  increased  and  decreased,  grouped  by  streets : 

Number  of  Parcels  (a)  in  the  Selected  Blocks  of  the  Mount  Morris  Park  Section 
Whose  Taxes  Would  Increase  and  Decrease  in  Consequence  of  the 

Adoption  of  the  Proposal  to  Untax  Buildings  


Increased       Decreased 

118th  Street,  north  side,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues 0  24 

119th  Street,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues ^j  ^^ 

120th  Street,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues ^1  ^^ 

121st  Street,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues 1^  *° 

122d  Street,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues ^7  ^o 

123d  Street,  south  side,  Seventh  to  Lenox  Avenues 34  U 

120th  Street,  north  side,  Lenox  to  Mt.  Morris  Avenues 12  0 

121st  Street,  Lenox  to  Mt.  Morris  Avenues 6  lb 

122d  Street,  Lenox  to  Mt.  Morris  Avenues 14  ^ 

123d  Street,  Lenox  to  Mt.  Morris  Avenues 22  ^ 

124th  Street,  south  side,  Lenox  to  Mt.  Morris  Avenues 5  U 

Mt.  Morris  Avenue,  120th  to  121st  Streets 6  4 

Mt.  Morris  Avenue,  121st  to  122d  Streets 4  U 

Mt.  Morris  Avenue,  122d  to  123d  Streets 5  U 

Mt.  Morris  Avenue,  123d  to  124th  Streets 3  U 


204  191 


(a)  Single-family  dwellings  only. 

Here,  it  will  be  seen,  is  considerable  irregularity.  In  general  the 
bulk  of  the  decreases  would  occur  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  section, 
viz.,  south  of  120th  Street,  while  most  of  the  increases  would  occur  north 

57 


of  that  street.  The  lots  in  this  section  are  very  narrow,  most  of  them 
being  eighteen  to  twenty  feet  in  width.  A  considerable  number  have 
even  less  frontage  than  this. 

Interesting  results  are  secured  when  the  parcels  are  grouped  accord- 
ing to  value.  As  is  shown  by  the  accompanying  table  and  graphs  the 
same  condition  here  prevails  as  in  the  side  streets  east  of  Fifth  Avenue. 
It  is  among  the  parcels  of  lower  value  that  the  bulk  of  the  increases 
occur.  The  higher  the  value  of  the  property,  the  greater  is  the  decrease 
in  taxes  both  absolutely  and  proportionally. 


Increases  and  Decreases  in  Taxes  Among  the  Single-Family  Dwellings  in  the 
Mount  Morris  Park  Section  Grouped  According  to  Value 

Number  of  Parcels  Percentage 

Increased       Decreased       Increased       Decreased 

$5,000  to    $9,999 15                     9                  100                     0 

$10,000  to  $14,999 64                      4                    94                      6 

$15,000  to  $19,999 100                  113                    47                    53 

Over  $20,000. 25 74 25 75 

204  191 


200 


150 


°      100 

(C 
UJ 
(D 

z 

5       50 


DECREASES 
INCREASES 


$5,000    $10,000  $15,000      OVER 

^'^  "^^  "^^       $20,000 

$9,999    $14999   $t9,999 


'rNCR  EASED 


DECREASED 


$5000    $)0000  $15000    Qygf^ 

TO  TO  TO 

$10000 
i9999    $14999  $19993 


VALUE       OF       PARCELS 


VALUE       OF       PARCEILS 


58 


The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased 
or  decreased  may  be  grouped  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Single-Family  Dwellings  in  Mount  Morris  Park  Section 

Improvements  Land  Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased.  ...     $1,015,200  $2,237,200  $3,252,400 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased....       1,579,300  1,963,900  3,543,200 

Total $2,594,500  $4,201,100  $6,795,600 


Applying  the  tax  rates  the  following  results  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners   of  Single-Family  Dwellings  in  the  Mount  Morris 

Park  Section  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed 

Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate  on  Improvements 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

$57,757,42 
62,921.56 

$60,303.48 
60,495.69 

+  $2,546.06 
—2,425.87 

$64,333.08 
56,670.99 

+  $6,575.66 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

—6,250.57 

Total 

$120,678.98 

$120,799.17 

+  $120.19 

$121,004.07 

+  $325.09 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  net  change  in  this  district  is  almost  negli- 
gible. If  the  full  plan  were  put  in  efifect  the  parcels  in  this  district  would 
yield  only  $325.09  more  in  taxes.  Certain  parcels  would  pay  $6,575.66 
more  in  taxes,  while  the  other  group  would  pay  $6,250.57  less,  the  two 
figures  almost  offsetting  each  other. 

The  average  house  in  this  group  is  assessed  at  $6,568  and  the  land 
on  which  it  stands  at  $10,636.  The  taxes  on  this  property  under  the 
present  system  are  $305.52.  So  near  are  the  values  in  this  parcel  to  the 
standard  composite  ratio  for  Manhattan  that  the  adoption  of  the  pro- 
posed changes  would  make  almost  no  difference  in  the  taxes  charged 
against  the  parcel.  Even  if  the  full  plan  were  put  into  operation  the 
annual  tax  bill  would  increase  only  sixty-three  cents  (to  $306.26).* 

E.     SUMMARY 

It  appears  that  in  general  the  tax  burden  of  Manhattan  would  be 
increased  by  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plan  to  untax  buildings.  The 
tax  rate  on  land  under  the  partial  reduction  plan  would  increase  to  2.20 


■  The  full  data  for  this  section  is  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  183- 


and  under  the  full  plan  to  2.86.  Most  of  the  sky-scrapers  below  Cham- 
bers Street  would  receive  a  decrease  in  taxes.  Downtown  tenements 
would  pay  higher  and  uptown  tenements  would  pay  lower  taxes.  Up- 
town apartment  houses  of  good  type,  both  elevator  and  walk-up  types, 
would  receive  substantial  reductions.  Upon  single-family  houses  the 
plan  would  have  a  variety  of  efifects.  On  Fifth  Avenue  the  typical  house 
would  pay  higher  taxes.  On  Riverside  Drive  it  would  pay  lower  taxes. 
In  the  case  of  the  more  modest  houses  in  the  side  streets  the  typical 
parcel  in  almost  every  section  would  pay  heavier  taxes  as  a  result  of  the 
adoption  of  the  plan. 


IV.     EFFECTS    IN   THE   BRONX   UNDER   CERTAIN 
ASSUMED   CONDITIONS  * 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  in  the  redistribution  of  the  general 
city  taxes  among  the  boroughs,t  consequent  to  the  adoption  of  the  plan 
to  untax  buildings,  the  taxes  for  the  Borough  of  the  Bronx  would  be 
slightly  reduced.     It  remains  to  discuss  the  effects  within  the  borough. 

A.     TAX  RATES 

The  effects  upon  the  tax  rates  are  shown  in  detail  by  the  following 
graph  :f 

THE  BRONX 
RATES  UPON  THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PROPERTY  UNDER  THE  PRES- 
ENT SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX 
BUILDINGS 


3.0% 

so 
D 

r 
< 
-1 

00 
N 

o 
z 
< 

a? 

(C 

r- 

w 

1- 
z 
u 
Z 
111 
> 
o 
a. 

I 

< 
z 

s 

K 
bJ 
0. 

O 

z 
< 

-1 

s 

< 

> 
a. 

Mi 
0. 

o 

a: 
a. 

i 
I 

v> 
tc 

lU 
0. 

'f>/o 

§ 

?! 

z 

UJ 

% 

> 
a. 

2 

00 

o 

o 

Z 
u 

2 — 

2 

1 

|Q5% 

PRESENT 

RATE    ON 

RATE    ON 

S-YSTCM 

IMPROVEMENTS 

IMPROVEMENTS    ONE 

HALF  RATE  OM  LAND 

ONE-MUNOREOtN      RATE 
ON       LAND 

*  The    most    important    condition    assumed    is    that    the    assessed    values    will    not    be    disturbed. 
Cf.  supra,  p.  18. 

■j-  Cf.  supra,  pp.  22-23. 

J  The  statistics  upon  which  this  graph  is  based  are  presented  in  the  table  on  p.  21. 

61 


Under  the  assumptions,  the  increase  in  the  rate  on  land  would  be  to 
2.18  if  half  the  tax  on  buildings  were  removed  and  to  2.85  if  the  full  plan 
were  adopted. 

B.    DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  BURDEN  AMONG  THE 
ELEMENTS  IN  THE  TAX  BASE 

How  the  present  burden  carried  by  the  three  elements  in  the  tax 
base  would  be  affected  by  the  proposed  changes  is  set  forth  in  the  accom- 
panying graph. 


THE  BRONX 

DISTRIBUTION   OF  TAXES  AMONG  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  TAX  BASE 

UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED 

PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 

PRESENT        SYSTEM 


ill 

LAND 
6.3  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
4.83  MILLIONS 

RATE    ON     IMPROVEMENTS,       ONE -HALF     RATE    ON  LAND 


i 

LAND 
7.8  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
2.9  MILLIONS 

RATE     ON    IMPROVEMENTS,   ONE- ONE -HUNDRETDTH    RATE   ON  LAND 


LAND 
\0Z  MILLIONS 


IMPROVEMENTS 
'^    $78,000 


C.     EFFECTS  IN  THE  VARIOUS  ASSESSMENT  SECTIONS   OF 
THE  BOROUGH 


The  Borough  of  the  Bronx  is  divided  into  ten  assessment  sections, 
whose  boundaries  are  indicated  in  the  map  on  page  63. 

«;.  62 


B0R0U6W 

OF 

THE  BRONX 


Tax  Levies  Upon  the  Real  Estate  (a)  in  tbe  Various  Assessment  Sections  of  the 

Borough  of  The  Bronx  Under  the  Present  System,  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plan  to  Untax  Buildings 

Levies  Increases  and  Decreases 

Rate  Rate  on                   Rate                   Rate  on 
Present  on  Improvements                 on                Improvements 
System  Improvements  One  One-         Improvements          One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth               One-Half           Hundredth 

Section  9: 

Land $1,243,152.85  $1,541,460.99  $2,015,700.23 

Improvements 1,104,663.24  684,866.51  17,906.65 

$2,347,816.09  $2,226,327.50  $2,033,606.88      —$121,488.59      —$314,209.21 

Section  10: 

Land $1,062,546.00  $1,317,515.55  $1,722,856.71 

Improvements 1,267,855.75  786,042.21  20,552.00 

$2,330,401.75  $2,103,557.76  $1,743,408.71        —226,843.99        —586,993.04 

Section  11: 

Land $1,627,077.45  $2,017,512.50  $2,638,211.70 

Improvements 1,413,438.62  876,300.34  22,911.91 

$3,040,516.07  $2,893,812.84  $2,661,123.61        —146,703.23        —379,392.46 

Section  12: 

Land $436,732.53  $541,531.28  $708,136.46 

Improvements 230,002.97  142,596.70  3,728.36 

$666,735.50  $684,127.98  $711,864.82           -)-17,392.48           +45,129.32 
Section  13: 

Land $270,678.64  $335,630.95  $438,889.72 

Improvements 55,350.29  34,315.94  897.23 

$326,028.93  $369,946.89  $439,786.95           -t-43,917.96         +113,758.02 

Section  14: 

Land $225,943.00  $280,160.50  $366,353.47 

Improvements 74,821 .  33  46,387 .55  1 ,212 .  86 

$300,764.33  $326,548.05  $367,566.33           +25,783.72           +66,802.00 

Section  15: 

Land $347,724.00  $431,164.18  $563,814.30 

Improvements 142,989.23  88,650.12  2,317.86 

$490,713.23  $519,814.30  $566,132.16           +29,101.07           +75,418.93 

Section  16: 

Land $244,922.50  $303,694.34  $397,127.63 

Improvements 65,076 .  34  40,345 .  88  1 ,054 .  89 

$309,998.84  $344,040.22  $398,182.52          +34.041.38          +88.183.68 

Section  17: 

Land $231,746.34  $287,356.41  $375,763.24 

Improvements 70,340.46  43,609.51  1,140.22 

$302,086.80  $330,965.92  $376,903.46           +28,879.12           +74.816.66 

Section  18: 

Land $231,404.71  $286,932.80  $375,209.31 

Improvements 37,941.87  23,523.11  615.04 

$269,346.58  $310,455.91  $375,824.35           +41,109.33         +106,477.77 

Total: 

Land $5,921,928.03  $7,342,959.50  $9,602,062.77 

Improvements 4.462.480. 10  2,766.637.87  72,337 .02 

$10,384,408.13  $10,109,597.37  $9,674,399.79        —274,810.76        —710.008.34 
(a)     Not  including  the  "Real  Estate  of  Corporations." 

64 


The  assessed  values  of  land  and  improvements  in  these  sections 
together  with  their  ratios  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  and  Ratios  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of  the  Bronx 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:    38. 71 :  61 .  29) 


Assessed  Values 

Taxes 
Payable 

Improvements 

Land 

Ratios 

Section    9 

$62,698,340 

$70,558,716 

47.1:52.9 

Decreased 

'        10 

71,960,800 

60,307,855 

54.5:45.5 

" 

11 

80,223,775 

92,349,461 

46.5:53.5 

" 

'        12 

13,054,480 

24,788,011 

34.5:65.5 

Increased 

'        13 

3,141,565 

15,363,145 

17.0:83.0 

" 

'        14 

4,246,700 

12,824,045 

24.9:75.1 

" 

'        15 

8,115,765 

19,736,076 

29.2:70.8 

" 

'        16 

3,693,595 

13,901,281 

21.0:79.0 

" 

'       17 

3,992,375 

13,153,430 

23.9:76.7 

" 

"       18 

2,163,500 

13,134,040 

14.1:85.9 

" 

An  inspection  of  the  ratios  reveals  the  fact  that  the  real  estate  in 
three  sections  (nine,  ten  and  eleven)  will  pay  smaller  taxes  while  that 
in  the  other  seven  sections  will  pay  greater.  Sections  nine,  ten  and 
eleven  comprise  the  southwest  portion  of  the  borough — that  which  lies 
nearest  the  center  of  the  city. 

The  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases  in  the  levies  in  real 
estate  in  the  various  assessment  sections  are  shown  in  the  table  on 
page  64.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  net  reduction  upon  the  land  and  im- 
provements in  the  borough  would  be  $274,810.76  under  the  plan  to  halve 
the  rate  on  buildings  and  $710,008.34  under  the  full  plan.  The  increases, 
in  those  sections  where  the  taxes  would  be  raised,  are  relatively  slight  in 
amount. 


65 


D.     EFFECTS    IN    SELECTED    SECTIONS    OF   THE   BOROUGH 

(1).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Nine 

Increased    11 

Decreased    196 

207  . 

Section  Nine  is  one  of  the  three  Bronx  sections  whose  taxes  would  be 
decreased.  If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  the  real  estate  in  this 
section  would  pay  smaller  taxes  by  $121,488.59.  If  the  full  plan  were 
adopted  its  tax  bill  would  be  decreased  $314,209.21.  This  is  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  approximately  one-fourth  of  the  land  value  of  the  section 
is  made  up  of  vacant  lots  ($18,663,715  as  compared  with  $70,558,716). 
The  taxes  on  this  land  would  be  increased  from  $328,830.40  to  $407,736.85 
under  the  plan  to  halve  the  building  rate  and  to  $533,179.41  under  the  full 
plan,  but  the  decrease  in  the  taxes  on  buildings  vVould  more  than  counter- 
balance this. 

The  character  of  the  improvements  in  the  section  can  be  judged  from 
the  following  data: 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Nine,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Ntunber        Percentage 


Single-family  houses 2,334  34 

Two-family  houses 987  14 

Tenements 2,969  43 

Miscellaneous  buildings 633  9 


Total 6,923  100 


Tenements  and  small  houses  of  the  one  and  two-family  type  consti- 
tute the  bulk  of  improvements.  The  average  of  the  value  of  the  build- 
ings is  $9,056  and  that  of  the  improved  plots  is  $7,496.  It  will  be  seen 
that  there  would  be  a  considerable  decrease  in  the  taxes  on  the  parcels 
in  this  section. 

The  sample  selected  consists  of  two  assessment  blocks  (2284  and 
2286)  lying  between  Willis  and  Brook  avenues.  One  block  is  that  be- 
tween 139th  and  140th  streets  and  the  other  by  141st  and  142nd  streets. 
In  these  two  blocks,  the  vacant  lots  and  exempt  property  being  dis- 
regarded, there  are  207  parcels,  almost  all  of  them  small  two-story  houses. 
The  average  house  is  assessed  for  $2,924  and  the  average  lot  for  $3,372. 
Of  these  207  parcels  all  except  eleven  would  receive  decreases  in  taxes. 
All  except  one  of  these  eleven  are  on  Willis  Avenue,  and  they  comprise 
the  more  expensive  parcels  in  the  group. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample  grouped  in  the 
usual  fashion  are: 


Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  From  Assessment  Section  Nine, 
Borough  of  the  Bronx 


Improvements         Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $41,700 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 563,600 

Total $605,300 


$88,500 
609,500 


$130,200 
1,173,100 


$698,000  $1,303,300 


The  amounts  by  which  the  taxes  in  the  parcels  will  be  increased  and 
decreased  are  shown  in  the  following  table : 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Assessment  Section 
Nine,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate  on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Gboup  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$734.70 
1.559.25 

$455.50 
1.933.41 

—$279.20 
+374.16 

$11.91 
2,528.24 

—$722.79 
+968.99 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$2,293.95 

$9,929.90 
10,738.60 

$2,388.91 

$6,156.31 
13,315.44 

+  $94.96 

—$3,773.59 

+2,576.84 

$2,540.15 

$160.96 
17,412.02 

+$246.20 

—$9,768.94 
+6,673.42 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$20,668.50 

$10,664.60 
12.297.85 

$19,471.75 

$6,611.81 
15.248.85 

—$1,196.75 

—$4,052.79 
+2,951.00 

$17,572.98 

$172.87 
19,940.26 

—$3,095.52 

—$10,491.73 
+7.642.41 

$22,962.45 

$21,860.66 

—$1,101.79 

$20,113.13 

—$2,849.32 

If  the  half  rate  on  buildings  were  adopted  the  taxes  on  the  eleven 
parcels  would  increase  $94.96  while  the  taxes  on  196  parcels  would 
decrease  $1,196.75.  In  case  the  full  rate  were  adopted  the  increase  would 
be  $246.20  and  the  decrease  $3,095.52. 

The  average  parcel  at  present  pays  $110.93  in  taxes.  This  charge 
would  be  $105.61,  or  $5.32  less,  under  the  half-rate  plan  and  would  be 
$97.16,  or  $13.77  less,  under  the  full  plan.  The  reduction,  it  will  be  seen, 
is  not  great,  being  in  the  first  case  less  than  five  per  cent,  and  under  the 
full  plan  approximately  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent. 

Practically  all  of  the  houses  included  in  this  sample  are  rented. 
According  to  the  assessment  roll  one  man  owns  94  of  the  207  parcels. 
If  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved  and  the  entire  reduction  in  the  house- 
tax  passed  on  to  the  tenants  the  annual  rents  paid  by  the  occupants  of 


67 


these  houses  might  be  reduced  at  the  most  $3,052.79,  or  $14.75  on  each 
parcel.  The  same  action  which  would  deprive  the  landlords  of  this  sum 
would  also  decrease  their  total  tax  bill  $1,101.79,  but  would  increase  the 
tax  on  their  land  $2,951.00.  Assuming  an  interest  rate  of  five  per  cent., 
the  selling  value  of  the  land  might  be  expected  to  depreciate  $59,020  or 
approximately  eight  and  one-half  per  cent.* 

(2).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Ten 

Increased    12 

Decreased    87 

99 

In  Section  Ten,  it  will  be  recalled,  taxes  upon  real  estate  in  general 
would  be  decreased  even  more  than  in  Section  Nine,  just  discussed.f 
This  is  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  is  greater  percentage  of  vacant 
lots,  almost  one-third  of  the  total  land  value  of  the  section  consisting  of 
such  property  ($19,243,190  as  compared  with  $60,307,855).  Under  the 
plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings,  this  vacant  land  would  pay  $420,- 
396.35  instead  of  $339,039.99.  Under  the  full  plan  it  would  pay  $549,- 
733.68,  an  increase  of  $210,693.68.  The  total  value  of  the  improvements 
is  very  high  compared  with  the  value  of  the  land  on  which  they  stand, 
the  ratio  being  improvements,  63.7,  to  land,  36.3.  The  standard  com- 
posite ratio  is  38.71  (improvements)  to  61.28  (land). 

The  character  of  the  improvements  is  shown  by  the  following 
summary: 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Ten,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 1,472  24 

Two-family  houses 1>264  21 

Tenements 2,905  47 

Miscellaneous  buildings 495  8 


Total 6,136  100 


One  and  two-family  houses  and  approximately  the  same  number 
of  tenements  make  up  the  bulk  of  the  buildings.  The  average  of  the 
building  values  is  $11,728  and  of  the  improved  plots  $6,692.  The  de- 
creases upon  the  parcels  is  so  considerable,  the  values  being  as  they  are, 
that  they  counterbalance  the  great  increase  in  the  taxes  on  vacant  land. 

The  sample  district  of  this  section  consists  of  twelve  blocks  front  as 
follows: — those  included  in  the  square  bounded  by  168th  and  169th 
streets,  and  Union  and  Prospect  avenues;  those  on  both  sides  of  Beck 


*  These  statements  assume,  of  course,  that  the  change  is  made  suddenly  and  that  there  is  no 
opportunity  for  the  effects  to  be  discounted  beforehand.  Detailed  data  for  this  section  is  given  in 
an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  190-193. 

t  The  reduction  would  be  $226,843.99  under  the  half-rate  plan  and  $586,993.04  under  the  full 
plan. 


Street  and  the  east  side  of  Kelly  Street  between  Longwood  and  Leggett 
avenues  and  those  on  both  sides  of  156th  Street  between  Kelly  and  Beck 
streets.  In  these  blocks  there  are  ninety-nine  houses.  In  the  case  of 
twelve  parcels  taxes  would  be  increased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to 
untax  buildings.  For  the  other  eighty-seven  there  would  be  a  decrease. 
The  parcels  where  taxes  would  be  increased  average  $7,900  in  value 
while  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  average  $8,753. 

The  assessed  values  grouped  according  to  the  effect  of  the  tax  stand 
as  follows  : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Ten,  Borough 

OF  the  Bronx 


Improvements       Land 


$55,600 
335,500 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  wotild  be  increased $30,300 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 426,000 

Total $456,300 


$85,900 
761,500 


$391,100         $847,400 


The  increases  and  decreases  in  the  taxes  on  these  parcels  are  shown 
in  the  accompanying  table  : 


Taxes  Payable   by  Owners  of   Parcels   in  the  Sample  of  Assessment   Section 
Ten,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$533.85 
979.60 

$330.97 
1,214.67 

—$202.88 
+235.07 

$8.65 
1,588.36 

—$525.20 

-1-608.76 

$1,513.45 
Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements. . . . 
Land 

Total: 

Improvements. . .  . 
Land 

$14,930. 


-1-$32.19 


$13,528.42        —$1,401.67 


-F$83.£ 


$7,505.57 

$4,653.28 

—$2,852.29 

$121.67 

—$7,383.90 

5,911.07 

7,329.50 

4-1,418.43 

9,584.46 

+3,673.39 

$13,416.64 

$11,982.78 

—$1,433.86 

$9,706.13 

-$3,710.51 

$8,039.42 

$4,984.25 

—$3,055.17 

$130.32 

—$7,909.10 

6,890.67 

8,544.17 

-1-1,653.50 

11,172.82 

+4,282.15 

-$3,626.95 


An  inspection  of  the  names  of  the  owners  in  this  section  reveals 
very  few  duplications,  indicating  a  larger  degree  of  home  ownership  by 
occupiers  than  in  the  previous  sample.  It  appears  from  the  table  that, 
if  the  rate  on  improvements  were  halved,  there  would  be  a  diminution  in 
the  taxes  on  the  structures  of  $3,055.17.  This  means  a  potential  reduc- 
tion in  annual  rents,  under  certain  assumed  conditions,  of  $30.86  for  each 


house  in  the  sample  district.  The  increase  in  the  tax  on  land,  on  the 
other  hand,  would  diminish  the  income  of  the  owners  $1,653.50.  If  this 
be  capitalized  (interest  rate,  five  per  cent),  it  appears  that  a  depreciation 
of  $33,070  in  the  selling  value  of  the  land  is  in  prospect.  The  average 
parcel,  under  the  assumed  conditions,  would  decrease  $334.04 — from 
$3,950.56  to  $3,616.52.* 

(j).     Sample  District  From  Assessment  Section  Eleven 

Increased 20 

Decreased 138 


158 

Section  Eleven,  the  third  Bronx  section  whose  taxes  would  be  de- 
creased by  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plan,f  contains  much  vacant 
land,  ($37,123,496  as  compared  with  a  total  land  value  of  $92,349,461), 
but,  again,  the  improvements  form  so  high  a  percentage  of  the  value 
of  the  improved  parcels  that  the  decrease  on  such  parcels  more  than 
counterbalances  the  increases  on  the  vacant  lots. 

The  character  of  the  buildings  in  the  section  is  shown  by  the  follow- 
ing table: 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Eleven,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 4,045  42 

Two-family  houses 1,992  21 

Tenements 2,974  31 

Miscellaneous 550  6 


Total 9,561  100 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  one  and  two-family  houses  constitute  nearly 
two-thirds  of  the  total  buildings. 

The  sample  from  this  section  consists  of  six  blocks-front  as  follows : 
East  169th  and  170th  streets  between  Findlay  and  Teller  avenues.  East 
170th  Street,  Teller  to  Clay  avenues,  and  between  East  169th  and  170th 
streets  on  Findlay  Avenue  (east  side),  on  Teller  Avenue  (both  sides) 
and  Clay  Avenue  (west  side).  In  this  sample  there  are  158  houses. 
The  average  parcel  is  assessed  at  $6,320  (house,  $3,372  and  land,  $2,948). 
In  the  case  of  only  twenty  of  these  parcels  would  taxes  be  increased. 
All  the  remainder,  138  parcels,  would  pay  lower  taxes.  The  average 
value  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  is  considerably  above 
the  average  of  all,  being  $7,065  as  compared  with  $6,320. 

The  assessed  values,  classified  in  the  usual  fashion,  follow : 


•  Detailed    information    in    regard    to    this    sample    may    be    found    in    ah    appendix.      Cf.    infra, 
pp.   194-195. 

t  Cf.  supra,  p.    C4-C5. 

70 


Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Eleven, 
Borough  of  The  Bronx 

Improvements         Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $46,200  $95,100         $141,300 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 486,600  370,700  857,300 

Total $532,800         $465,800         $998,600 

Applying  the  tax  rates,  the  results  shown  in   the  following  table 
are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Assessment  Section  Eleven,  Borough  of 

The  Bronx,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed 

Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

$813.98 
1,675.54 

$504.65 
2,077.60 

—$309.33 
+402.06 

$13.19 
2,716.79 

—$800.79 
+1,041.25 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$2,489.52 

$8,573.26 
6,531.25 

$2,582.25 

$5,315.23 
8,098.50 

+  $92.73 

—$3,258.03 
+  1,567.25 

$2,729.98 

$138.97 
10,590.05 

+  $240.46 

—$8,434.29 
+4,058.80 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$15,104.51 

$9,387.24 
8,206.79 

$13,413.73 

$5,819.88 
10,176.10 

—$1,690.78 

—$3,567.36 
+1,969.31 

$10,729.02 

$152.16 
13,306.84 

—$4,375.49 

—$9,235.08 
+5,100.05 

$17,594.03 

$15,995.98 

—$1,598.05 

$13,459.00 

—$4,135.03 

The  net  decrease  in  taxes  under  the  half-rate  plan  would  be  $1,598.05 
or  $10.11  per  parcel.  The  movement  is  nearly  all  in  one  direction,  the 
increases  on  the  few  parcels  in  Group  A  amount  to  only  $92.73,  while 
the  decreases  in  Group  B  are  $1,690.78. 

Altogether  there  would  be,  under  the  assumed  conditions,  a  decrease 
of  $3,567.36  in  the  tax  on  buildings  if  the  rate  levied  on  them  were  halved. 
This  means  a  possible  decrease  in  rent  of  $22.58  per  house  per  year. 
There  is  little  grouping  of  ownership  in  the  section,  indicating  some 
degree  of  home  ownership.  The  same  action  which  would  tend  to  re- 
duce rents  in  this  fashion  would  decrease  net  land  revenue  $1,969.31 
and,  at  an  assumed  interest  rate  of  five  per  cent.,  depreciate  the  selHng 
value  of  the  land  $39,386.20.  The  average  plot  might  be  expected  to 
decrease  in  value  $249— from  $2,948  to  $2,699.* 


The  details  for  this  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra, 


71 


(4).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section   Twelve 

Increased 4 

Decreased 79 

83 

Assessment  Section  Twelve  lies  south  and  east  of  Van  Cortlandt 
Park.  The  untaxing  of  buildings  would,  it  will  be  recalled,*  increase 
the  taxes  on  the  real  estate  of  this  district.  This  is  because  of  the  very- 
large  proportion  of  vacant  land,  the  vacant  lots  of  this  section  being 
assessed  at  $15,131,761,  and  the  improved  lots  at  only  $9,656,250,  the 
vacant  lots  thus  constituting  three-fifths  of  the  total  land  value.  In 
the  case  of  the  improved  parcels  alone,  however,  the  building  value  con- 
stitutes a  high  percentage  of  the  total  value  (57.4  per  cent.). 

As  will  appear  from  an  inspection  of  the  following  table,  the  single- 
family  dwelling  is  the  predominant  type  of  improvement. 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Twelve,  Borough  of  the 

Bronx 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 1,454  47. 9 

Two-family  houses 842  27. 8 

Tenements 335  11. 1 

Miscellaneous 397  13. 2 


Total 3,028  100. 0 

The  sample  selected  consists  of  the  following  blocks  front:  Briggs 
Avenue,  (east  side),  194th  to  196th  streets  and  Bedford  Park  Boulevard 
to  201st  Street;  Bainbridge  Avenue,  (west  side)  194th  to  196th  streets 
and  Bedford  Park  Boulevard  to  201st  Street;  Bedford  Park  Boulevard, 
(north  side),  from  Briggs  to  Bainbridge  avenues;  201st  Street  (south 
side),  Briggs  to  Bainbridge  avenues;  and  the  four  sides  of  the  block 
bounded  by  201st  Street,  Bainbridge  Avenue,  Perry  Avenue  and  Mosholu 
Park  Boulevard.  In  this  sample  there  are  eighty-three  parcels.  In  only 
four  cases  would  the  taxes  be  increased.  The  average  value  of  these  four 
parcels  is  $10,800,  while  that  of  the  79  parcels  would  be  decreased  is  only 
$8,849. 

The  assessed  values  grouped  in  the  usual  fashion  are : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Twelve, 
Borough  of  The  Bronx 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $15,300  $27,900  $43,200 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 403,000  296,100  699,100 

Total $418,300         $324,000         $742,300 

•  Cf.  supra,  pp.  64-65. 

72 


By  applying  the  tax  rates,  the  following  results  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels    in   the    Sample  of  Assessment  Section 

Twelve,  Borough  of  The  Bronx,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$269.57 
491.56 

$167.12 
609.52 

—$102.45 
+117.96 

$4.37 
797.04 

—$265.20 
+305.48 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$761 . 13 

$7,100.34 
5,216.90 

$776.64 

$4,402.05 
6,468.75 

+  $15.51 

—$2,698.29 
+  1,251.85 

$801.41 

$115.10 
8,458.90 

+  $40.28 

—$6,985.24 
+3,242.00 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$12,317.24 

$7,369.91 
5,708,46 

$10,870.80 

$4,569.17 
7,078.27 

—$1,446.44 

— $2,800.74 
+1,369.81 

$8,574.00 

$119.47 
9,255.94 

—$3,743.24 

—$7,250.44 
+3,547.48 

$13,078.37 

$11,647.44 

—$1,430.93 

$9,375.41 

—$3,702.96 

— ^.i 

If  the  rate  on  buildings  be  halved,  it  appears  that  the  net  taxes  on 
these  83  parcels  will  be  decreased  $1,430.93  or  $17.23  per  parcel.  There 
is  little  grouping  of  ownership  but  if  the  houses  were  all  rented  there 
would  be  the  sum  of  $2,800.74,  decreased  taxes  on  houses,  which  under 
certain  conditions  might  be  available  for  lowered  rents.  This  would 
mean  a  reduction  of  $33.74  per  parcel.  At  the  same  time  the  net  annual 
income  to  the  owners  of  the  plots  would  diminish  $1,369.81.  Capitalized 
(interest  rate,  five  per  cent.)  this  sum  would  be  $27,396.20.  The  owner 
of  the  average  plot  could  then  anticipate  a  reduction  in  the  selling  value 
of  his  plot  of  $330— from  $3,904  to  $3,574.* 

(5).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Fifteen 

Increased 0 

Decreased 117 

117 

The  great  bulk  of  the  land  in  Section  Fifteen,  Borough  of  the 
Bronx,  is  vacant,  $15,881,191  as  compared  with  $19,736,076.  This  section 
extends  from  the  Sound  to  Bronx  River,  between  Bronx  and  Pelham 
parkways  and  Westchester  Avenue  and  Middletown  Road.  Where  the 
parcels  are  improved,  the  building  values  bear  a  high  proportion  to  the 
value  of  the  land  (68  per  cent.).  The  real  estate  in  the  section  as  a 
whole,  it  will  be  recalled,!  would  pay  heavier  taxes  under  the  plan  to 
untax  buildings,  but  the  taxes  on  typical  improved  plots  would  be 
decreased. 


*  Detailed  statistics  for  the  section  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.   199-200. 
t  Cf.  supra,  pp.  64-65. 


73 


The  character  of  the  improvements  in  the  section  is  shown  in  the 
following  tabulation : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Fifteen,  Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Number 


Percentage 


Single-family  houses 1,073 

Two-family  houses 1,386 

Tenements 205 

Miscellaneous  buildings 247 

Total 2,911 


100 


Here  the  tenements  are  a  small  factor,  the  one  and  two-family  houses 
constituting  85  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  buildings. 

The  sample  selected  consists  of  the  fronts  of  eight  blocks  as  follows : 
Morris  Park  Avenue,  (north  side),  between  Amethyst  Avenue  and 
Victor  Street  and  between  Cruger  and  Holland  avenues ;  Rhinelander 
Avenue,  (south  side),  Unionport  Road  to  Victor  Street;  and  the  follow- 
ing blocks  between  Rhinelander  and  Morris  Park  avenues,  Amethyst 
Avenue  and  Unionport  Road,  (east  side),  Victor  Street,  (west  side), 
Cruger  Avenue  (east  side),  and  Holland  Avenue  (west  side).  In  the 
district  thus  described  there  are  117  houses.  The  total  assessed  values 
of  these  parcels  are  improvements,  $369,100,  and  land,  $162,550.  The 
average  house  is  assessed  for  $3„155  and  the  plot  on  which  it  stands  for 
$1,389;  total,  $4,544.  In  every  case  the  taxes  on  these  parcels  would  be 
decreased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings.  The  follow- 
ing table  shows  the  amounts  of  the  decreases: 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Assessment  Section  Fifteen, 
Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Present 

Rate  on  Improvements 

System 

One 

-Half 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

$6,503.06 

J4,031.75 

—$2,471.31 

Land 

2,863.92 

3,551.15 

+687.23 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 


$7,582.90 


-$1,784.08 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


-$6,397.65 
-1-1,779.76 


The  net  decrease  in  taxes  on  the  average  parcel  under  the  plan  to 
halve  the  rate  on  buildings  is  $15.25.  The  gross  decrease  in  the  tax  on 
buildings  would  be  $2,471.31.  There  is  considerable  grouping  of  owner- 
ship indicating  that  many  of  these  houses  are  rented.  If  the  entire  de- 
crease in  the  tax  on  buildings  were  passed  on  to  the  tenants,  rents  would 
be  decreased  $21.12  per  parcel  per  year.  At  the  same  time  the  owners  of 
the  plots  would  receive  $687.28  less  each  year.    As  a  consequence  their 


74 


land  might  be  expected  to  depreciate  in  price  (interest  rate  five  per  cent.) 
$13,745.60.  Each  plot  would  under  these  conditions  sell  for  $117  less,  for 
$1,272  instead  of  $1,389.* 

(6).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Seventeen 

Increased 8 

Decreased 79 

87 

Assessment  Section  Seventeen,  Borough  of  the  Bronx,  which  lies 
to  the  extreme  north,  is  in  all  essentials  similar  to  the  section  just 
discussed.  With  a  total  land  value  of  $13,153,430,  its  vacant  lots  alone 
are  assessed  at  $10,185,855.  This  predominance  of  vacant  land  is  the 
cause  for  the  increased  taxes  which  real  estate  as  a  whole  in  this  section 
would  be  called  upon  to  bear,t  were  the  rate  on  buildings  decreased. 

Of  the  parcels  which  are  improved,  the  buildings  form  a  high  per- 
centage of  the  total  value  (57  per  cent.).  The  character  of  the  improve- 
ments is  shown  in  the  following  statement : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Seventeen,  Borough  of  The 

Bronx 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses |16  55 

Two-family  houses 528  6b 

Tenements 38  6 

Miscellaneous ^^^  * 


Total 1.491  100 


In  this  case  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  structures  are  small  houses. 

'  The  sample  selected  consists  of  eleven  fronts  of  blocks  as  follows : 
222nd  Street  (north  side),  Barnes  to  Bronxwood  avenues;  223rd  Street 
(both  sides),  between  the  same  avenues;  224th  Street  (south  side), 
between  the  same  avenues  and  on  both  sides  between  the  White  Plains 
Road  and  Barnes  Avenue;  225th  Street  (south  side),  between  the  road 
and  Barnes  Avenue;  the  White  Plains  Road  (east  side),  224th  to  225th 
streets;  and  Barnes  Avenue  (east  side),  222nd  Street  to  223rd  Street  and 
(both  sides)  223rd  to  224th  streets. 

In  the  sample  are  87  houses.  Their  average  value  is  $4,809.  In  the 
case  of  only  eight  of  these  parcels  would  the  taxes  be  increased  if  the 
rate  on  buildings  were  lowered.  Moreover,  the  average  value  of  the 
parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  is  greater  than  that  of  those 
whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. 


•  The  details  for  this  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  201-202. 
t  Cf.  supra,  pp.  64-65. 

75 


The  assessed  values,  grouped  according  to  effect  of  the  imposition 
of  the  plan,  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  the  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Seventeen, 
Borough  of  The  Bronx 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $13,500  $31,600  $45,100 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 263,600  109,700  373,300 

Total $277,100         $141,300         $418,400 


By    applying    the    tax    rates    the    following    figures,    showing    the 
amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases,  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Assessment  Section  Seventeen, 
Borough  of  The  Bronx 


Present 

System 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increa.se  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$237.85 
556.75 

$147.46 
690.35 

—$90.39 
+  133.60 

$3.86 
902.74 

—$233.99 
+345.99 

S794.60 

$837.81 

+  $43.21 

$906.60 

+  $112.00 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

beTdecreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$4,644.29 
1,932.77 

$2,879.36 
2,396.56 

—$1,764.93 
+463.79 

$75.28 
3,133.88 

—$4,569.01 
+  1,201.11 

$6,577.06 

$5,275.92 

—$1,301.14 

$3,209.16 

—$3,367.90 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$4,882.14 
2,489.52 

$3,026.82 
3,086.91 

—$1,855.32 
+597.39 

$79.14 
4,036.62 

—$4,803.00 
+  1,547.10 

$7,371.66 

$6,113.73 

—$1,257.93 

$4,115.76 

—$3,255.90 

To  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  be  to  diminish  the  net 
taxes  on  the  average  parcel  $14.46.  The  reduction  in  the  tax  on  build- 
ings alone  amounts  to  $1,855.32  or  $21.33  per  parcel.  These  are  the 
sums,  which  under  certain  circumstances  would  be  available  for  lowering 
rents.  The  net  return  to  the  owners  of  plots  would  at  the  same  time  be 
diminished  $597.39,  or  $6.87  per  parcel.  Such  a  decrease,  capitalized  at 
an  assumed  interest  rate  of  five  per  cent.,  would  mean  a  diminution  in 
the  selling  value  of  $11,947.80,  or  $137.32  per  parcel.* 


For  the  detailed  statistics  for  the  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  203-204. 

76 


E.     SUMMARY 

The  presence  of  the  large  quantity  of  vacant  land  in  the  Bronx  is 
all  that  prevents  a  very  large  decrease  of  taxes  in  this  borough  under 
the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings.  Vacant  lots  constitute  more  than 
half  of  the  number  of  parcels  and  almost  half  of  the  land  values  in  the 
borough.*  If  the  vacant  land  were  disregarded  there  would  be  a  very 
considerable  decrease  in  the  taxes  upon  the  remaining  real  estate.f  In 
the  samples  selected  from  the  various  assessment  sections  it  was  only  an 
exceptional  parcel  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  by  the  proposed 
change.  In  almost  every  case  a  substantial  net  reduction  appeared  to  be 
involved.  Finally,  contrary  to  the  situation  in  Manhattan,  those  parcels 
whose  taxes  would  be  increased  were  not,  on  the  average  the  less  valu- 
able parcels  in  each  group  but  rather  the  more  valuable  ones.  This  indi- 
cates that  in  the  Bronx  the  expenditure  for  houses  by  the  more  well-to- 
do  in  the  various  sections  tends  to  turn  toward  a  larger  relative  use  of 
land  than  of  buildings. 

♦The  exact  figures  are: 

Assessed  Values  of  Land: 

Vacant $153,089,599 

Total 336,116,060 

Number  of  Parcels: 

Vacant 34,337 

Total 66,598 

fThis  is  indicated  by  the  following  figures: 
Improved  Parcels: 

Land $183,026,461 

Improvements 253,280,895 


77 


V.     EFFECTS   IN   BROOKLYN   UNDER   CERTAIN 
ASSUMED   CONDITIONS  * 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  adoption  of  the  proposed 
plan  to  untax  buildings  would  mean  decreased  taxes  for  real  estate  in  the 
Borough  of  Brooklyn  as  a  whole.f  The  effects  within  the  borough  will 
now  be  examined  in  some  detail. 

A.     TAX  RATES 

The  accompanying  graph  illustrated  the  probable  effects  of  the 
adoption  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings  upon  the  tax  rates 
levied  on  various  types  of  property  within  the  borough.^ 

BROOKLYN 

RATES  UPON  THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PROPERTY  UNDER  THE  PRESENT 

SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 


9% 

5 

% 

o 

r 

5 

fX 

D 

Z 
< 

1 

oo 

>- 
r 

i 

IT 

0 

z 

> 

I 

J 
i 

o 

5 

> 

•K 

It 

± 

p 

1 

I 

- 

9 

PREStNT 

RME.     ON 

RATE     ON 

SYSTEM 

IMPROVtMENTt 

IM^ROVtNltMTS 

ONE. 

HALT  RfcTtON  l.k»tO 

ONfMUNORtOTH 
SN       UAHO 

RATI 

*  The  most  important  assumption  is  that  the  assessed  values  will  not  be  disturbed.     Cf.  supra,  p.  18, 

t  Cf.  supra,  pp.  22-23. 

{The   statistics   upon  which  this  graph  is   based   are  given  in  more  detail  in  the   table   on 


78 


B.     DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  BURDEN  AMONG  THE 
ELEMENTS  IN  THE  TAX  BASE 

The  portions  of  the  tax  burden  borne  at  present  by  the  various 
types  of  property  subjected  to  taxation,  together  With  the  probable 
changes  that  would  result  from  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  tax  buildings 
at  a  lower  rate,  are  shown  in  the  graph  which  follows : 


BROOKLYN 

DISTRIBUTION  OF  TAXES  AMONG  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  TAX  BASE 

UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED 

PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 

PRESENT      SYSTEM 


m 
til 

LAND 
I4.€  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
14.6   MILLIONS 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS    -  ONE-HALF  RATE  ON  LAND. 


rs 

jJcO 

zS-i 

LAND 

IMPROVEMENTS 

s?^ 

\ZZ  MILLIONS 

S.I  MILLIONS 

ftOL-. 

a    *, 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS -ONE-ONE-HUNDRETH  RATE  ON  LAND 


4i 

22  X 


LAND 
Z<  MILLIONS 


iMPROVeMCNTSt 
$t40.Z&5.3^ 


C.    EFFECTS  IN  THE  VARIOUS  ASSESSMENT  SECTIONS  OF 
THE  BOROUGH 

Brooklyn  is  divided  into  twenty-live  assessment  sections,  whose 
boundaries  are  traced  on  the  map  on  page  80. 

The  assessed  values  in  these  sections  together  with  the  ratios  compara- 
ble with  the  standard  composite  ratio  for  Brooklyn  are  given  in  the 
table  on  page  81. 


79 


LOWER    BAY 


/^     T   L   A    N   T  /  C  O  C  S  ^ 


A/ 


BROOKLYN 


80 


Assessed  Values  and  Ratios  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of  Brooklyn 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:   39. U- 60.56) 


Section 


Assessed  Values 

Taxes 

Improvements 

Land 

Ratio 

Payable 

$59,074,520 

$82,879,500 

41.6:58.4 

Decreased 

41,630,640 

43,627,860 

48.9:51.1 

" 

50,792,815 

42,620,745 

54.4:45.6 

" 

73,479,520 

54,778,685 

57.3:42.7 

" 

50,245,035 

36,054,290 

58.3:41.7 

" 

93,405,022 

69,526,513 

57.4:42.6 

52,054,901 

50,907,754 

50.5:49.5 

54,035,205 

44,436,235 

54.9:45.1 

29,819,285 

33,171,985 

47.3:52.7 

" 

22,550,160 

22,480,315 

50.1:49.9 

" 

50,906,645 

42,707,090 

54.4:45.6 

" 

28,959,505 

20,937,985 

58.1:41.9 

" 

26,496,910 

18,517,280 

58.9:41.1 

" 

2,021,745 

4,361,255 

31.7:68.3 

Increased 

9,030,880 

12,456,020 

42.0:58.0 

Decreased 

50,658,780 

46,196,160 

52.3:47.7 

" 

19,491,380 

20,039,475 

49.3:50.7 

" 

18,828,220 

32,393,205 

36.8:63.2 

Increased 

15,399,305 

20,022,900 

43.5:56.5 

Decreased 

15,620,575 

22,147,580 

42.4:58.6 

" 

10,941,400 

26,094,955 

29.5:70.5 

Increased 

3,866,890 

13,476,290 

22.3:77.7 

" 

5,621,455 

13,035,505 

30.1:69.9 

" 

1,874,900 

7,207,150 

20.6:79.4 

" 

822,080 

3,782,427 

17.9:82.1 

" 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  case  of  seven  sections  out  of  the  twenty- 
five  the  taxes  will  be  increased,  while  in  the  other  eighteen  sections  they 
will  be  decreased.  By  referring  to  the  map  it  can  be  seen  that  the 
sections  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  (14,  18,  21,  22,  23,  24  and  25) 
are  in  the  extreme  south-east  portion  of  Brooklyn  and  in  the  extreme 
south-west  portion.  In  all  of  these  sections  the  vacant  land  is  a  very 
important  factor. 

The  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases  in  the  levies  on  land  and 
improvements  in  the  various  assessment  sections  are  shown  in  the 
table  on  pages  82  and  83.  The  net  decrease  for  the  borough  would  be  very 
considerable— $1,901,935.56  under  the  half-rate  plan  and  $4,962,585.17  un- 
der the  full  plan. 


81 


Tax  Levies  Upon  the  Real  Estate  (a)  in  the  Various 


Assessment   Sections  of 
Proposed  Plans  to 


Levies 


Rate  Rate  on 
Present                       on  Improvements 
System             Improvements  One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


Increases  and  Decreases 

Rate  Rate  on 

on  Improvements 
Improvements  One  One- 

One-Half  Hundredth 


),583.27 


-260,517.48        —679,924. 


-184,494.25        —481,520.71 


-331,644.66        —865,560.23 


Section  1: 

Land $1,522,463.26  $1,897,725.06  $2,502,397.32 

Improvements 1,085,175.30  676,326.46  17,834.60 

$2,607,638.56  $2,574,051.52  $2,520,231.92 

Section  2: 

Land $801,426.34  $998,964.56  $1,317,264.70 

Improvements 764,738.20  476,616.71  12,568.29 

$1,566,164.54  $1,475,581.27  $1,329,832.99 

Section  3: 

Land $782,926.04  $975,904.25  $1,286,856.68 

Improvements 933,043.69  581,511.70  15,334.35 

$1,715,969.73  $1,557,415.95  $1,302,191.03 

Section  4: 

Land $1,006,262.53  $1,254,289.46  $1,653,943.79 

Improvements 1,349,789.39  841,244.98  22,183.47 

$2,356,051.92  $2,095,534.44  $1,676,127.26 

Section  5: 

Land $662,302.89  $825,549.50  $1,088,594.39 

Improvements 922,981.19  575,240.33  15,168.98 

$1,585,284.08  $1,400,789.83  $1,103,763.37 

Section  6: 

Land $1,277,174.23  $1,591,976.38  $2,099,227.91 

Improvements 1,715,812.89  1,069,366.08  28,198.98 

$2,992,987.12  $2,661,342.46  $2,127,426.89 

Section  7: 

Land $935,155.08  $1,165,655.21  $1,537,068.00 

Improvements 956,227.71  595,960.95  15,715.37 

$1,891,382.79  $1,761,616.16  $1,552,783.37 

Section  8: 

Land $816,275.86  $1,017,474.25  $1,341,672.13 

Improvements 992,605.10  618,632.85  16,313.23 

$1,808,880.96  $1,636,107.10  $1,357,985.36 

Section  9: 

Land $609,356.10  $759,552.21  $1,001,568.38 

Improvements 547,768.34  341,392.05  9,002.44 

$1,157,124.44  $1,100,944.26  $1,010,570.82 

Section  10: 

Land $412,954.39  $514,740.76  $678,752.65 

Improvements 414,237 .  42  258, 170 .  02  6,807 .  89 

$827,191.81  $772,910.78  $685,560.54 

Section  11: 

Land $784,512.16  $977,881.32  $1,289,463.71 

Improvements 935,134.71  582,814.91  15,368.72 

$1,719,646.87  $1,560,696.23  $1,304,832.43 

Section  12: 

Land $384,622.41  $479,425.42  $632,184.77 

Improvements 531,974.52  331,548.68  8,742.87 

$916,596.93  $810,974.10  $640,927.64 

Section  13  : 

Land $340,155.03  $423,997.57  $559,095.94 

Improvements 486,737.64  303,355.17  7,999.42 


-141,631.27 


$826,892.67  $727,352.74  $567,095.36 


3,539.93       —259,797.31 


(a)     Not  including  the  "Real  Estate  of  Corporations.' 

82 


THE    Borough    of    Brooklyn,    Under    the    Present     System,    and     Under 
Untax  Buu-dings 


Levies 


Rate  Rate  on 
Present                       on  Improvements 
System            Improvements,  One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


Increases  and  Decreases 

Rate  Rate  on 
on  Improvements 
Improvements  One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


—15,917.36 


+  19,656.55 


-1-15.037.44 


Section  14: 

Land $80,114.51  $99,861.40  $131,680.24 

Improvements 37,138.65  23,146.35  610.36 

$117,253.16  $123,007.75  $132,290.60 

Section  15: 

Land $228,812.10  $285,210.47  $376,087.10 

Improvements 165,893 .  65  103,391 .  84  2,726 .  42 

$394,705.75  $388,602.31  $378,813.52 

Section  16: 

Land $848,604.98  $1,057,771.95  $1,394,809,90 

Improvements 930,581 .  53  579,977 .  17  15,293 .  89 

$1,779,186.51  $1,637,749.12  $1,410,103.79 

Section  17: 

Land $368,117.14  $458,851.87  $605,055.88 

Improvements 358,048.85  223,150.96  5,884.45 

$726,165.99  $682,002.83  $610,940.33 

Section  18: 

Land $595,050.22  $741,720.17  $978,054.52 

Improvements 345,866.87  215,558.64  5,684.24 

$940,917.09  $957,278.81  $983,738.76 

Section  19: 

Land $367,812.66  $458,472.35  $604,555.42 

Improvements 282,879.07  176,302.02  4,649.05 

$650,691.73  $634,774.37  $609,204.47 

Section  20: 

Land $406,842.19  $507,122.00  $668,706.31 

Improvements 286,943.71  178,835.28  4,715.85 

$693,785.90  $685,957.28  $673,422.16 

Section  21: 

Land $479,353 .  88  $597,506 .  62  $787,890 .  20 

Improvements 200,989 .  14  125,264 .  81  3,303 .  21 

$680,343.02  $722,771.43  $791,193.41 

Section  22: 

Land $247,554.06  $308,572.00  $406,892.32 

Improvements 71,033.22  44,270.86  1,167.41 

$318,587.28  $352,842.86  $408,059.73 

Section  23: 

Land $239,457.01  $298,479.17  $393,583.61 

Improvements 103,263.88  64,358.35  1,697.12 

$342,720.89  $362,837.52  $395,280.73 

Section  24: 

Land $132,392.46  $165,025.00  $217,606.92 

Improvements 34,441.16  21,465.17  566.03 

$166,833.62  $186,490.17  $218,172.95 

Section  25: 

Land $69,481.67  $86,607.74  $114,203.57 

Improvements 15,101.28  9,411.75  248.19 

$84,582.95  $96,019.49  $114,451.76 

All  Sections: 

Land $14,399,179.21     $17,948,336.71  $23,667,216.36 

Improvements 14,468,407.14  9,017,314.08  237,784.82 


+42,428.41         +110,850.39 


+34,255.58 


+29.868.81 


$28,867,586.35     $26,965,650.79     $23,905,001.18     —1,901,935.56 


83 


D.     EFFECTS    IN    SELECTED    SECTIONS    OF    THE   BOROUGH 

(1).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Five 

Increased 4 

Decreased 148 

152 

Vacant  land  accounts  for  less  than  one-fourth  of  the  total  land  value 
of  Assessment  Section  Five,  Borough  of  Brooklyn  ($8,999,460  as  com- 
pared with  $36,054,290).  At  the  same  time  the  value  of  the  buildings 
makes  up  a  very  large  share  of  the  total  value  of  improved  real  estate 
($50,245,035  as  compared  with  $77,299,865).  It  is  readily  seen  that  the 
adoption  of  the  plan  would  mean  much  decreased  taxes  for  this  section.* 

The  following  table  reveals  the  type  of  the  improvements  : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Five,  Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 2,879  32 

Two-family  houses 3,519  40 

Tenements 2,148  24 

Miscellaneous 321  4 


Total 8,867  100 

Small  houses  comprise  72  per  cent,  of  the  total  number  of  structures. 

The  sample  selected  from  this  section  consists  of  the  block  bounded 
by  Albany  Avenue,  Park  Place,  Troy  Avenue,  and  Sterling  Place,  and  of 
three  fronts  of  the  block  bounded  by  Troy  Avenue,  Park  Place,  Sterling 
Place  and  Schenectady  Avenue.  There  are  152  small  houses  in  this 
sample  and  in  the  case  of  only  four  would  the  taxes  be  increased.  The 
four  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  in  this  case  average  much 
less  in  value  than  those  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased  ($3,000  as  com- 
pared with  $5,018). 

The  assessed  values  arranged  according  to  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
plan  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Real  Estate  in  Section  Five,  Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $3,375  $8,625  $12,000 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 471,555  271,025  742,580 

Total $474,930         $279,650         $754,580 

By  applying  the  tax  rates  the  figures  given  in  the  following  table  are 
obtained: 


Cf.  supra,  pp.  81-83. 

84 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Section  Five,   Borough  of  Brooklyn, 
Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the  Proposed 
Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Levy 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements $62 .  00  $38 .  64  —$23 .36  $1 .  02  —$60 .  98 

Land 158.44  197.49  -f39.05  260.42  -flOl.98 

$220.44  $236.13              +$15j69~           $261.44              -f$41.00 
Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements $8,662 .  28  $5,398 .  69        —$3,263 .  59               $142 .  36        —$8,519 .  92 

Land 4,978.62  6,205.77           +1,227.15              8,183.11           -|-3,204.49 

$13,640.90  $11,604.46  —$2,036.44  $8,325.47  —$5,315.43 
Total: 

Improvements $8,724.28  $5,437.33  —$3,286.95  $143.38  —$8,580.90 

Land 5,137.06  6,403.26  -(-1,266.20  8,443.53  4-3,306.47 

$13.861.34  $11,840.59        —$2,020.75  $8.586.91        —$5,274.43 

It  appears  that  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  result  in  a 
decrease  in  the  net  taxes  on  this  group  of  152  parcels  of  $2,020.75  or 
$13.30  per  parcel.  The  reduction  in  the  tax  on  buildings  alone  would  be 
$3,286.95,  and  if  this  were  passed  on  as  lower  rents  to  the  tenants  it 
would  mean  $21.62  less  in  the  annual  rent  on  the  average  house.  The 
owners  of  the  plots  would  sufifer  a  diminution  of  $1,266.20  in  the  net 
annual  return  from  the  land.  Capitalized  at  five  per  cent,  this  amounts 
to  $25,324.00,  or  a  depreciation  in  the  selling  price  of  each  parcel  of  land 
equal  to  $166.61.* 

(2).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Six 

Increased 7 

Decreased 123 

130 

In  Section  Six  vacant  land  is  of  still  less  importance  than  it  was 
shown  to  be  in  the  section  just  discussed.  Out  of  a  total  assessed  land 
value  of  $69,526,513,  only  $2,358,280  is  credited  to  vacant  lots.  Here 
again  the  buildings  are  responsible  for  the  bulk  of  the  value  of  improved 
real  estate  (improvements  $93,405,022;  total,  $160,573,255).  This  ex- 
plains the  decrease  in  the  taxes  on  the  real  estate  of  the  section  in 
general,!  a  decrease  greater  than  that  of  any  other  section  in  Brooklyn. 

The  buildings  in  the  section  may  be  grouped  as  follows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Six,  Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 11,879  54 

Two-family  houses 4,313  20 

Tenements 4,941  22 

Miscellaneous 941  4 

Total 22,074  100 

*  The  details  of  the  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  205-207. 
f  Cf.  supra,  pp.  79-83. 

85 


Small  houses,  it  will  be  noticed,  constitute  74  per  cent,  of  the  total 
number. 

The  sample  selected,  which  contains  130  small  houses,  consists  of 
one  side  each  of  Decatur  and  McDonough  streets  between  Lewis  and 
Reid  avenues  and  one  side  of  Reid  Avenue  between  McDonald  and 
Decatur  streets.  The  average  parcel  is  assessed  at  $8,061  (building, 
$5,320,  and  land  $2,741).  In  the  cases  of  only  seven  out  of  the  130 
parcels  would  the  taxes  be  increased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to 
untax  buildings.  These  parcels,  as  in  the  previous  section,  average  lower 
in  value  than  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. 

The  assessed  values,  grouped  in  the  usual  manner  are : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Section  Six,  Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Improvements        Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $14,125  $33,075  $47,200 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 677,415  323,275  1,000,690 

Total $691,540         $356,350        $1,047,890 


The  tax  levies  arrived  at  by  applying  the  tax  rates  to  the  foregoing 
valuations  are: 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Section  Six,  Borough 

OF  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group'  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  woiild 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$259.47 
607.57 

$161.71 
757.33 

—$97.76 
+  149.76 

$4.26 
998.64 

—$255.21 
+391.07 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$867.04 

$12,443.84 
5,938.43 

$919.04 

$7,755.52 
7,402.16 

+  $52.00 

—$4,688.32 
+  1,463.73 

$1,002.90 

$204.51 
9,760.71 

+  $135.86 

—$12,239.33 

+3,822.28 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$18,382.27 

$12,703.31 
6,546.00 

$15,157.68 

$7,917.23 
8,159.49 

—$3,224.59 

—$4,786.08 
+  1,613.49 

$9,965.22 

$208.77 
10,759.35 

—$8,417.05 

—$12,494.54 
+4,213.35 

$19,249.31 

$16,076.72 

—$3,172.59 

$10,968.12 

—$8,281.19 

The  adoption  of  the  half-rate  plan,  it  will  be  seen,  would  mean  a 
net  reduction  for  these  130  parcels  of  $3,172.59,  or  $24.40  per  parcel.  The 
maximum  reduction  in  rent  is  represented  by  the  decrease  in  building 
taxes  which  is  $4,786.08,  or  $36.82  per  parcel.  Net  annual  revenues  to 
the  owners  of  the  plots  would  be  diminished  $1,613.49,  or  $12.41  per  plot. 
Capitalized*  this  would  mean  a  possible  diminution  in  the  value  of  the 
average  plot  of  $248.20.t 


(3).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Eight 

Increased 1 

Decreased 161 

162 

Assessment  Section  Eight  has  the  same  characteristics  as  the  two 
preceding  ones— a  small  proportion  of  vacant  land  ($2,079,290  as  com- 
pared with  a  total  land  value  of  $44,436,235),  and  a  high  proportion  of 
building  value  to  land  value  in  the  improved  parcels  ($54,035,205,  build- 
ings, as  compared  with  $42,356,945,  land).  Taxes  on  real  estate  as  a 
whole  in  this  section  would  decrease  considerably  by  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  plan.| 

The  typical  improvement  in  this  section  is  the  tenement.  This  is 
apparent  from  the  following  data : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Eight,  Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Number  Perceritage 

Single-family  houses 445  5 

Two-family  houses 2,289  28 

Tenements 4,473  55 

Miscellaneous 953  12 


Total 8,160  100 


The  sample  selected  consist  of  162  parcels  from  assessment  blocks 
2,199,  2,200,  and  2,201,  extending  between  Bedford  and  Division  avenues 
and  Keap  and  Hooper  streets.  The  parcels  average  $6,926  in  value.  If 
the  plan  to  untax  buildings  were  adopted,  only  one  parcel  out  of  the 
162  would  pay  increased  taxes.  This  parcel  is  more  valuable  than  the 
average,  being  assessed  at  $10,500. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample,  grouped  according 
to  the  effect  of  the  proposed  plan,  are  as  follows : 


*  Interest   rate,   five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  the  parcels  in  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  208-210. 

J  Cf.  supra,  pp.  79-83. 


87 


Assessed  Values  of  Real  Estate  in  Sample  from  Section  Eight,  Borough  of 

Brooklyn 


Improvements 

Land 

Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  wovdd  be  increased 

$2,900 

$7,600 
526,650 

$10,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  wotild  be  decreased .  .  . 

584,800 

1,111,450 

Total $587,700 


$534,250        $1,121,950 


The   following  table  shows  the  result  of  extending  the  tax  rates 
against  the  preceding  values  : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  Section  Eight,    Borough  of 

Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 


$53.27 
139.61 


$33.20 
174.02 


-$20.07 
-f34.41 


-I- $37. 47 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 
Improvements. . . 
Land 


Total: 

Improvements. 
Land 


$10,742.54 
9,674.35 

$6,695.20 
12,058.92 

—$4,047.34 
-1-2,384.57 

$176.55 
15,901.25 

—$10,565.99 
-1-6,226.90 

$20,416.89 

$18,754.12 

—$1,662.77 

$16,077.80 

—$4,339.09 

$10,795.81 
9,813.96 

$6,728.40 
12,232.94 

—$4,067.41 
-1-2,418.98 

$177.43 
16,130.72 

—$10,618.38 
+6,316.76 

$18,961.34        —$1,648.43  $16,308.15 


Under  the  plan  to  halve  the  rate  on  buildings,  there  would  be  a  net 
reduction  on  the  parcels  in  the  sample  of  $1,648.43,  or  $10.18  per  parcel. 
The  maximum  reduction  in  rents  would  correspond  with  the  amount  of 
the  decrease  in  the  tax  on  buildings,  which  is  $4,067.41,  or  $25.11  per 
parcel.  On  the  other  hand,  the  same  action  would  diminish  the  net 
annual  revenue  of  the  owners  of  the  plots  $2,418.98,  or  $14.93  per  plot. 
Capitalized*  this  means  a  possible  decrease  in  selling  value  of  $298.60 
per  plot.f 

(4).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Twelve 


Increased 
Decreased 


0 

98 


98 

Assessment    Section    Twelve    contains    relatively    more    vacant    land 
than  the  preceding  sections  ($6,281,550  as  compared  with  a  total  land 


•  Interest    rate,   five  per   cent. 

t  For  the  detailed  statistics  for  the  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.   211-213. 


value  of  $20,937,985).  However,  the  value  of  buildings  is  so  great  as 
compared  with  the  value  of  the  plots  on  which  they  stand  (improve- 
ments, $28,959,505;  improved  land  $14,656,435),  as  to  counterbalance  the 
influence  of  the  vacant  lands  and  the  taxes  for  the  section  as  a  whole 
show  a  decrease.* 

In  this  section,  again,  tenements  form,  the  bulk  of  the  improvements. 
This  is  made  plain  by  the  following  table : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Twelve,  Borough 
OF  Brooklyn 


Number  Percentage 


Single-family  houses 1,386  21 

Two-family  houses 1-526  23 

Tenements 3,436  51 

Miscellaneous "^14  5 


Total 6,662  100 


The  sample  from  this  section  consists  of  the  eight  blocks-front  in 
the  district  stretching  from  New  Jersey  Avenue  to  Bradford  Street  and 
from  Belmont  to  Sutter  avenues.  Every  one  of  the  ninety-eight  parcels 
in  this  section  would  receive  a  decrease  in  taxes. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample  section  are,  improve- 
ments $318,600  and  land  $106,100.  The  average  parcel  is  assessed,  then, 
at  $4,333.67. 

The  levies  against  this  property  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  As       ment  Section 

Twelve  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present  Rate   on   Improvements  Rate   on   Improvements 

System  One-Half  One  One-Hundredth 


Increase  or 
Levy  Levy  Decrease  Levy 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements J5,852.5o  $3,647.56        —$2,204.99  $91.18        —$5,761.37 

Land 1,949.01  2,429.41  -f480.40  3,203.50  -H,254.49 

$7,801.56  $6,076.97        —$1,724.59  $3,294.68        —$4,506.88 


The  adoption  of  the  half  rate  would  reduce  the  net  taxes  of  the 
owners  of  these  98  parcels  $1,724.59,  or  $17.60  per  parcel.  The  maximum 
available  for  lowered  rents  would  be  $2,204.99,  or  $22.50  per  parcel  per 
year.  The  decrease  in  net  annual  return  to  the  owners  of  the  plots 
would  be  $480.40,  or  $4.90  per  year  per  parcel,  f 

♦  Cf.  supra,  p.  79-83. 

I  The  details  for  the  parcels  in  the  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.      Cf.  infra,  pp.  212-213. 


(5).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Sixteen 

Increased 4 

Decreased 238 

242 

Assessment  Section  Sixteen  (located  in  Flatbush),  Borough  of 
Brooklyn,  contains  considerable  vacant  land  ($9,789,375  as  compared  with 
a  total  land  value  of  $46,196,160),  but  here  again  the  building  value  is 
great  enough  ($50,658,780;  improved  land,  $36,406,785)  to  counter- 
balance, so  that  there  would  be  a  net  decrease  in  taxes  for  the  real  estate 
of  the  entire  section.* 

The  single-family  houses  outnumber  all  other  types  of  building  in 
this  section.     The  details  are  as  follows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Sixteen 
Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 6,303  57 

Two-family  houses 3,381  31 

Tenements 836  8 

Miscellaneous 441  4 


Total 10,961  100 

The  sample  from  this  section  consists  of  thirty-two  blocks-front 
selected  from  the  following  districts :  Dorchester  Road  to  Ditmas 
Avenue ;  Stratford  to  Marlborough  roads ;  Ditmas  to  Newkirk  avenues, 
16th  to  19th  streets;  Foster  Avenue  to  Avenue  G,  17th  to  19th  streets, 
In  these  blocks  there  are  242  houses.  The  average  parcel  is  assessed  at 
$10,481.20.  Every  parcel  of  the  242,  except  four,  would  pay  lower  taxes 
were  the  plans  to  untax  buildings  adopted.  The  four  parcels  whose 
taxes  would  be  increased  are  among  the  most  expensive  in  the  entire 
sample,  averaging  $22,325  a  piece. 

The  assessed  values  grouped  in  the  usual  fashion  are : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  From  Assessment  Section  Sixteen, 
Borough  of  Brooklyn 

Improve-  Land  Total 

ments 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $33,700  $55,600  $89,300 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 1,396,600        1,050,550  2,447,150 

Total $1,430,300      $1,106,150       $  2,536,450 

Extending  the  tax  rates  against  these  values,  the  following  results 
are  obtained : 

*  Cf.  supra,  pp.  79-83. 

90 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Assessment  Section 

Sixteen,   Borough  of  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and 

Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Levy 


Decrease 


Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 
Decrease 


Levy 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements $619.06  $385.82  —$233.24  $10.17  —$608.89 

Land 1,021.35  1,273.09  -|-251.74  1,678.74  -f  657. 39 

$1,640.41  $1,658.91  -|-$18.50  $1,688.91  4-848.50 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements $25,654.98  $12,027.43      —$13,627.55  $317.16      —$25,337.82 

Land 19,298.18  24-054.86  -f4,756.68  31,719.47         -|-12,421.29 

$44,953.16  $36,082.29  —$8,870.87  $32,036.63  —$12,916.53 
Total: 

Improvements $26,274.04  $12,413.25  —$13,860.79  $327.33  —$25,946.71 

Land 20,319.53  25,327.95  -|-5,008.42  33,398.21  -|-13,078.68 

$46,593 .  57  $37,741.20  —$8,852.37  $33,725.54  —$12,868.03 

To  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  be  to  decrease  the  net 
taxes  on  these  parcels  $8,852.37,  or  $36.58  per  parcel.  The  maximum 
available  for  reduced  rents  would  be  $13,860.79,  or  $57.28  per  house  each 
year.  The  diminution  in  the  net  annual  return  to  the  owners  of  the 
plots  would  be  $5,008.42,  or  $20.70  per  lot.  Capitalized*  this  amounts  to 
$414,  which  may  be  accepted  as  the  possible  depreciation  in  the  selling 
value  of  the  average  plot.f 

(6).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Nineteen 

Increased 1 

Decreased 209 

210 

Assessment  Section  Nineteen,  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  which  fronts  on 
Gravesend  Bay,  contains  a  relatively  large  amount  of  vacant  land 
($8,601,325  as  compared  with  a  total  land  value  of  $20,022,900),  but  here 
again  the  improvements  are  of  sufficient  value  to  turn  the  tide  in  favor 
of  a  general  reduction  for  the  section.^ 

Single-family  houses  predominate  in  Section  Nineteen,  as  is  shown 

by  the  following  table  : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Nineteen,  Borough 

OF  Brooklyn 

Number Percentage 

Single-family   houses 2,559  61 

Two-family   houses 1,425  34 

Tenements 92  2 

Miscellaneous 145  3 

Total 4,221 100 

*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  the  details  of  the  parcels  in  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  216-219. 

jThe  improvements    are  assessed  at  $15,399,305   and   the   improved   land   for   $11,421,575.      Cf. 
supra,  pp,  79-83. 


The  sample  consists  of  seventeen  blocks-front  selected  from  the 
following  districts:  18th  to  19th  avenues,  70th  to  71st  streets;  13th  to 
14th  avenues,  71st  to  72nd  streets,  73rd  to  74th  streets  and  75th  to  77th 
streets.  The  210  parcels  are  assessed  at  $4,919.76  per  parcel.  Every 
parcel  except  one  would  pay  lower  taxes  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  of 
the  plan  to  untax  buildings.  This  piece  of  property  is  assessed  at  $7,000, 
considerably  more  than  the  average  parcel. 

The  assessed  values  grouped  according  to  the  effect  of  the  proposed 
plan  are  given  in  the  following  table: 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Section  Nineteen,  Borough  of 

Brooklyn 


Improve- 
ments 


Land 


$4,500 
297,600 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $2,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 728,550 

Total $731,050 


$7,000 
1,026,150 


$302,100        $1,033,150 


Applying  the  tax  rates  the  following  levies  are  determined  : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Assessment  Section 

Nineteen,  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and 

Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$45.92 
82.66 

$28.62 
103.04 

—$17.30 
+20.38 

$0.75 
135.87 

—$45.17 
+53.21 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$128.58 

$13,383.17 
5,466.79 

$131.66 

$8,340.95 
6,814.27 

+  $3.08 

—$5,042.22 
+  1,347.48 

$136.62 

$219.95 
8,985.50 

+  $8.04 

—$13,163.22 
+3,518.71 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$18,849.96 

$13,429.09 
5,549.45 

$15,155.22 

$8,369.57 
6,917.31 

—$3,694.74 

—$5,059.52 
+  1,367.86 

$9,205.45 

$220.70 
9,121.37 

—$9,644.51 

—$13,208.39 
+3,571.92 

$18,978.54 

$15,286.88 

—$3,691.66 

$9,342.07 

—$9,636.47 

Under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate,  the  net  decrease  in  taxes  on 
the  parcels  in  the  sample  is  seen  to  be  $3,691.66  or  $17.56  on  each  parcel. 
The  maximum  sum  available  for  rent  reductions  is  $5,059.52,  or  $24.09 
per  building  annually.    The  prospective  decrease  in  the  annual  net  return 


92 


to  the  owners  of  plots  is  $1,367.86,  or  $6.52  per  plot.  By  capitalizing* 
this  sum  the  probable  depreciation  in  the  selHng  value  of  the  average 
plot  is  found  to  be  $130.40.t 

(7).    Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Twenty 

Increased 1 

Decreased 132 

133 

In  Assessment  Section  Twenty,  located  in  Flatbush,  over  one-half  of 
the  land  is  vacant  ($12,604,240  as  compared  with  $22,147,580),  and  yet 
the  taxes  for  the  real  estate  of  the  entire  section  would  be  decreased  by 
the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  lower  the  tax  on  buildings. $  This  is  because 
of  the  very  high  value  of  the  improvements  as  compared  with  the  value 
of  the  plots  on  which  they  stand  ($15,620,575  as  compared  with 
$9,543,340). 

The  table  which  follows  shows  that  single-family  houses  are  by  far 
the  most  important  type  of  improvement. 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Twenty,  Borough 
OF  Brooklyn 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 2,607  70 

Two-family  houses 941  25 

Miscellaneous 184  5 


Total 3,732  100 

The  sample  consists  of  133  parcels  of  an  average  value  of  $9,170. 
The  parcels  are  situated  in  thirteen  blocks-front,  selected  from  these 
two  districts:  Avenue  G  to  Avenue  H,  Westminster  to  Argyle  roads; 
and  Avenue  G  to  Wellington  Courts,  Rugby  Road  to  17th  Street.  In 
only  one  parcel  out  of  the  entire  133  would  taxes  be  increased  and  this 
parcel  is  clearly  an  abnormal  one,  being  assessed  at  $19,000,  more  than 
twice  as  much  as  the  average  parcel  in  the  sample. 

The  assessed  values,  grouped  in  the  usual  fashion  are: 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Assessment  Section  Twenty, 
Borough   of   Brooklyn 

Improve-  Land  Total 

ments 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $6,400  $12,600  $19,000 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 707,930  492,710         1,200,640 

Total $714,330  $505,310      $1,219,640 

•  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  220-223. 

t  Cf.  supra,  pp.  79-83. 

93 


By  extending  the  tax  rates  against  these  values  the  following  results 
are  secured : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Assessment  Section 

Twenty,  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present  System  and 

Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 

Rate  on  Improvements 

Rate  on  Improvements 

System 

One-Half 

One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy                Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes 

would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land                 • • • • 

$117.57 
231.46 

$73.27 
288.51 

—$44.30 
+57.05 

$1.93           —$115.64 
380.43              +148.97 

$349.03 

$361.78 

+  $12.75 

$382.36              +$33.33 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes 

would 

be  decreased: 

$13,004.39 
9,050.89 

$8,104.88 
11,281.78 

—$4,899.51 
+2,230.89 

$213.72      —$12,790.67 

Land 

14,876.49           +5,825.60 

$22,055.28 

$19,386.66 

—$2,668.62 

$15,090.21        —$6,965.07 

Total : 

$13,121.96 
9,282.35 

$8,178.15 
11,570.29 

—$4,943.81 
+2,287.94 

$215.65      —$12,906.31 

Land 

15,256.92           +5.974.57 

$22,404.31 

$19,748.44 

—$2,655.87 

$15,472.57        —$6,931.74 

The  adoption  of  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would 
result  in  a  net  decrease  in  the  taxes  on  these  parcels  of  $2,655.87,  or  $19.97 
per  parcel.  The  maximum  amount  available  for  reductions  in  rents  is 
$4,943.81,  or  $37.17  per  parcel.  The  net  annual  return  to  the  owners  of 
the  plots  would  be  diminished  $2,287.94,  or  $17.20  per  parcel.  Capital- 
izing this,*  the  amount  of  $344  is  obtained  as  the  probable  depreciation 
in  the  selling  value  of  the  average  plot.f 

(8).     Sample  District  from  Assessment  Section  Tzvcnty-Three 


Increased . 
Decreased 


0 
96 

96 


The  real  estate  in  Section  Twenty-Three,  one  of  the  Jamaica  Bay 
sections,  would  bear  heavier  taxes  if  the  buildings  were  untaxed.  The 
cause  is  readily  understood  when  the  amount  of  vacant  land  is  deter- 
mined. Out  of  a  total  land  value  of  $13,035,505  not  less  than  $10,156,- 
010  is  represented  by  vacant  lots.  Such  improvements  as  there  are 
($5,621,455)  bear  a  high  relationship  to  the  value  of  the  land  on  which 
they  stand  ($2,879,495). 


•  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  this  section,  cf.  infra,  pp.  224- 


94 


The  table  which  follows  shows  that  single-family  houses  are  here 
once  more  the  most  important  type : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Assessment  Section  Twenty- Three, 
Borough  of  Brooklyn 


Number 


Percentage 


Single-family  houses 1,095 

Two-family  houses '3I9 

Miscellaneous 47 

Total 1  461 


100 


The  sample  consists  of  96  parcels  with  a  total  assessed  value  of 
$554,000  (improvements  $345,550,  land  $208,450).  The  average  parcel, 
therefore,  is  assessed  at  $5,771.  The  parcels  are  from  the  district 
bounded  by  Avenue  G,  35th  Street,  Avenue  H  and  32nd  Street.  Every 
parcel  of  the  96  would  pay  lower  taxes,  were  the  proposal  to  untax  build- 
ings adopted. 

The  changes  in  the  levies  which  would  result  are  shown  in  the 
following  table : 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  District  from  Assessment 

Section  Twenty-Three,  Borough  of  Brooklyn,  Under  the  Present 

System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$6,347.62 
3,829.14 

$3,956.10 
4,772.96 

—$2,391.52 
-1-943.82 

$104.32 
6,293.77 

—$6,243.30 
-1-2,464 .  63 

$10,176.76 

$8,729.06 

—$1,447.70 

$6,398.09 

—$3,778.67 

Under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  the  net  decrease  in 
the  taxes  on  the  parcels  would  be  $1,447.70,  or  $15.08  per  parcel.  The 
maximum  available  for  an  increase  in  rents  would  be  $2,391.52,  or  $24.50 
per  house.  The  increase  in  the  total  tax  on  land  would  be  but  $943.82, 
or  $9.83  per  lot.  Capitalizing  this  sum*,  $196.60  is  obtained  as  the 
probable  depreciation  in  the  selling  value  of  the  average  parcel. f 


*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  parcels  in  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  227-228. 


F.     SUMMARY 

Vacant  land  in  Brooklyn  is  not  a  factor  of  sufficient  importance  to 
aflfect  the  situation  to  anything  approaching  the  degree  that  it  affects 
conditions  in  the  Bronx.*  Indeed  in  only  seven  sections  would  there 
be  actual  increases  in  the  total  taxes  on  real  estate.  The  value  of  the 
improvements  in  the  borough  as  a  whole  exceeds  the  total  land  value, 
even  including  the  vacant  land  (improvements,  $787,627,773,  and  land, 
$783,859,159).  It  is  clear  that  with  a  standard  composite  ratio  of  39.44 
(improvements)  to  60.56  (land)  the  average  improved  parcel  in  Brooklyn 
would  receive  a  substantial  decrease  in  taxes  under  the  proposed  plans. 
Finally,  the  tendency  apparent  in  Manhattan,  to  decrease  the  tax  burden 
of  the  more  expensive  parcels  of  each  group  of  houses,  reappears  in  three 
samples  of  Brooklyn  houses.  But  on  the  other  hand  the  opposite  ten- 
dency is  present  in  five  samples,  the  result  being  not  so  clear  cut  as  in 
the  case  of  the  other  two  boroughs. 


♦.The  figures  for  vacant  lots  in  Brooklyn: 
Assessed  Values  of  Land: 

Vacant J153.123.447 

Total 783.859.159 

Number  of  Parcels: 

Vacant 50.381 

Total 214.211 


96 


VI.     EFFECTS   IN   QUEENS   UNDER   CERTAIN 
ASSUMED   CONDITIONS* 

The  slight  increase  which  would  be  the  result  in  Queens  if  the  tax 
on  buildings  were  lowered  has  already  been  commented  upon.f  An  at- 
tempt will  now  be  made  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  probable  effects 
within  the  borough. 

A.     TAX  RATES 
The  graph  which  follows  makes  plain  the  probable  effects  upon  tax 
rates  in  Queens  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings.^ 

QUEENS 
RATES  UPON  THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PROPERTY  UNDER  THE  PRES- 
ENT SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX 
BUILDINGS 


5.0%. 

n 

^ 

_l     1 

o 

15% 

N 

n 

n 

(- 

2 
U 

s 

> 

0. 

5 

> 
•- 

I 

i 

c 

- 

Q 

z 
< 
J 

ir> 

(- 

z 
u 
z 
u 

t 

2 

- 

t- 

y 

tc 

a. 
o 

r 

0. 

i 

2 
O 
0> 
K 

N 
N 

^J 

Q 

Z 
< 
-J 

i5 

o 
o 

o 

V 
H- 

r 

S! 

o 
o: 

a- 

J 
< 
z 
o 
w 
d: 
111 
a 

o 

r 
< 

h 

r 

tu 

0. 

PRESENT 

RATE    ON 

RATE    OH 

SYSTtM 

IMPROVEMENTS 

IMPROVEMENTS    ONE- 

HALF  RATE  ON  LAND 

ONE-MOHORKOTH      RAT» 
ON      I^HO 

*  The  most  important  condition  ia  that  assessed  values  will  not  be  changed.      Cf.  supra,  p.  18. 

t  Cf.  supra,  pp.  22-23. 

J  The  statistics  upon  which  this  graph  is  based  are  given  in  more  detail  on  p.  21. 

97 


B.     DISTRIBUTION    OF    BURDEN    AMONG    THE    ELEMENTS 
IN  THE  TAX  BASE 

How  the  burden  now  borne  by  land,  improvements  and  personal 
property  would  be  affected  by  the  proposed  plans  is  shown  by  accom- 
panying graph : 

QUEENS 

DISTRIBUTION   OF  TAXES  AMONG  THE  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  TAX  BASE 
UNDER   THE   PRESENT   SYSTEM   AND   UNDER   THE   PROPOSED 
PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 

PRESENT        SYSTEM 


Tf 

1?~ 

LAND 

IMPROVEMENTS 

SZ  MILLIONS 

3.2  MILLIONS 

RATE   ON  IMPROVEMENTS    -  ONE  HALF  RATE  ON  LAND 


i 

LAND 
6.5  MILLIONS 

IMPROVEMENTS 
LdMILLIONS 

RATE  ON  IMPROVEMENTS -ONE  ONEHUNDRETH  RATE   ON  LAND. 


C.    EFFECTS  IN  THE  VARIOUS  ASSESSMENT  SECTIONS  OF 
THE  BOROUGH 


The  division  lines  of  the  borough  utilized  for  assessment  purposes 
are  those  of  the  wards  and  they  are  traced  on  the  accompanying  map. 

By  an  inspection  of  the  following  table,  which  shows  the  assessed 
values  of  improvements  and  land  for  each  ward,  and  the  ratio  between 
the  two,  it  is  possible  to  determine  which  wards  will  pay  greater  and 
which  smaller  taxes  under  the  proposed  plans. 

98 


BOROUGH 
QUEENS 


99 


Assessed  Values  and  Ratios  in  the  Various  Wards  of  the  Borough  of  Queens 
{Standard    Composite   Ratio:   88.49:61.61) 


Assessed  Values 

Taxes 
Payable 

Improve- 

Land 

Ratios 

ments 

Wardl 

$35,069,580 

$62,322,945 

36:64 

Increased 

Ward  2 

48,707,490 

63,655,920 

43.3:56.7 

Decreased 

Ward  2 

21,331,680 

49,024,620 

30.3:69.7 

Increased 

Ward  4 

43,392,677 

75,820,135 

36.4:63.6 

Increased 

Wards 

17,506,930 

29,854,500 

37:63 

Increased 

It  appears  that  the  only  ward  in  which  the  real  estate  will  pay- 
lower  taxes  because  of  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plans  is  Ward  Two 
(Newtown).  The  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases  are  shown  in 
the  following  table : 


Tax  Levies  Upon  the  Real  Estate  (a)  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  or 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System,  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Levies 


Rate  Rate  on 
Present                       on  Improvements, 
System            Improvements,  One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


Increases  and  Decreases  '    ' 

Rate         /  Rate  on 
on  Improvements 
Improvements,  ,     One  One- 
One-Half  Hundredth 


Ward  1: 

Land $1,119,687.80  $1,386,747.85  $1,809,110.45 

Improvements 630,056.57  390,166.61  10,177.19 

$1,749,744.37  $1,776,914.46  $1,819,287.64 

Ward  2: 

Land $1,143,635.89  $1,416,407.88  $1,847,804.05 

Improvements 875,073.89  541,895.18  14,134.91 

$2,018,709.78  $1,958,303.06  $1,861,938.96 

Ward  3: 

Land $880,771 .42  $1,090,846.82  $1,423,086.67 

Improvements 383,242.83  237,325.61  6,190.45 

$1,264,014.25  $1,328,172.43  $1,429,277.12 

Ward  4: 

Land $1,362,176.96  $1,687,073.82  $2,200,906.88 

Improvements 779,588.50  482,765.23  12,592.55 

$2,141,765.46  $2,169,839.05  $2,213,499.43 

Ward  5: 

Land $536,362.96  $664,292.48  $866,616.43 

Improvements 314,527 .  75  194,773 .  35  3,080 .  51 

$850,890.71  $859,065.83  $871,696.94 

All  Wards: 

Land $5,042,635.04  $6,245,368.85  $8,147,524.47 

Improvements 2,982,489.54  1,846,925.98  48,175.62 


$8,025,124.58       $8,092,294.83       $8,195,700. 


+  $27,170. 0»i.:-   -F$69.543.27 


—60,406.72   ."— 156,770.82 


+64.158.18         +165,262.87 


+28,073.59  +71,733.97 


+8,175.12  +20.806.23 


+  $67,170.25      +$170,575.51 


(a)     This  does  not  include  the"ReallEstate  of  Corporations." 

100 


It  will  be  noticed  that  the  changes  involved — both  increases  and 
decreases — are  relatively  slight  and  unimportant.  If  the  tax  rate  were 
halved  the  real  estate  of  the  whole  of  the  Borough  of  Queens  would  pay- 
only  $67,170.25  more  taxes  than  at  present. 

D.     EFFECTS    IN    SELECTED    SECTIONS    OF   THE    BOROUGH. 
(1).     Sample  District  from  Ward  One 

Increased 8 

Decreased 61 

69 

The  taxes  on  the  real  estate  in  Ward  One  would  be  increased.*  As 
usual,  this  is  because  of  the  large  amount  of  vacant  land,  which  is  re- 
sponsible for  more  than  half  of  the  total  land  value  in  the  ward  ($32,347,- 
495  as  compared  with  $62,322,945).  Indeed  the  value  of  the  buildings 
in  the  ward  greatly  exceeds  the  value  of  the  land  on  which  they  stand 
($35,069,580  as  compared  with  $29,975,450). 

One  and  two-family  houses  are  the  most  common  types  of  improve- 
ments, as  the  following  table  shows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  One,  Borough  of  Queens 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 3,100  38 

Two-family  houses 2,849  35 

Tenements 1,314  16 

Miscellaneous 931  11 

Total 8,194  100 

The  sample  consists  of  69  parcels  taken  from  the  two  blocks  bounded 
as  follows :  Crescent,  Jamaica,  and  Ely  avenues  and  Elm  Street ;  and 
Trowbridge  and  Woolsey  streets,  Hoyt  Avenue  and  Willow  Street.  The 
average  value  of  these  parcels  is  $4,151.  If  the  plan  to  untax  buildings 
were  adopted  eight  of  these  parcels  would  pay  higher  and  61  would  pay 
lower  taxes.  The  average  value  of  the  eight  parcels  is  $3,938,  somewhat 
less  than  that  of  the  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  according  to  the  effect  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plan  upon  the  taxes  payable  by  the  parcels,  are  presented 
in  the  following  table: 

Assessed  Value  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  One,  Borough  of  Queens 

Improvements  Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased.  .  .        $10,700  $20,800  $31,500 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased...        143,050  111,850  254,900 

Total $153,750  $132,650  $286,400 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  100. 

101 


By  applying  the  rates  of  taxation  to  these  values  the  following  re- 
sults are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  District  from  Ward  One, 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Geoup  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$192.24 
373.69 

$119.04 
462,82 

—$73.20 
-1-89.13 

$3.11 
003.78 

—$189.13 
+230.09 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$565.93 

$2,570.02 
2,009.49 

$581.86 

$1,591.50 

2,488.77 

+  $15.93 

—$978.52 
-1-479.28 

$606.89 

$41.51 
3,246.78 

+  $40.96 

—$2,528.51 
+  1,237.29 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$4,579.51 

$2,762.26 
2,383.18 

$4,080.27 

$1,710.54 
2,951.59 

—$499.24 

—$1,051.72 
-1-568.41 

$3,288.29 

$44.62 
3,850.56 

—$1,291.22 

—$2,717.64 
+1,467.38 

$5,145.44 

$4,662.13 

—$483.31 

$3,895.18 

—$1,250.26 

Under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings,  the  net  taxes  pay- 
able by  the  owners  of  these  sample  parcels  would  be  decreased  $483.31 
or  seven  dollars  per  parcel.  The  maximum  available  for  the  reduction  of 
rents  is  $1,051.72,  or  $15.24  per  house.  Net  annual  returns  to  the  owners 
of  lands  would  be  diminished  $568.41,  or  $8.24  per  lot.  Capitalized,* 
this  means  a  probable  depreciation  in  the  value  of  each  plot  of  $164.80.t 


(2).    Sample  District  from  Ward  Tzvo 


Increased  . 
Decreased . 


0 
110 


110 

Ward  Two  is  the  only  ward  in  the  Borough  of  Queens  where  the 
taxes  on  real  estate  would  be  decreased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to 
untax  buildings. ij:  Even  here  the  vacant  land  is  a  very  prominent  factor, 
slightly  exceeding  the  improved  land  in  amount  ($33,526,160,  vacant,  and 
$30,129,760  improved).  The  value  of  improvements  is  relatively  very 
large,  however  ($48,707,490). 

That  one  and  two-family  houses  are  the  most  common  type  of  im- 
provement is  shown  by  the  following  table : 

•  Interest  rate  assumed  to  be  five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  229-230. 

%  Cf.  supra,  p.  100. 


102 


Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Two,  Borough  of  Queens 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 7,145  39 

Two-family  houses 5,665  31 

Tenements 2,733  15 

Miscellaneous 2,689  15 

Total 18,232  100 

One  hundred  and  ten  houses  were  selected  as  samples.*  The 
average  value  of  the  parcels  is  $4,233.  The  total  assessed  value  of  the 
buildings  is  $349,250,  and  of  the  land  $118,350.  If  the  rate  on  buildings 
were  reduced,  the  taxes  on  every  one  of  these  parcels  would  be  reduced. 
The  amounts  of  the  reductions  are  shown  in  the  following  table : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  Section  from  Ward  Two, 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 

Present  Rate   on  Improvements  Rate   on   Improvements 

System  One-Half  One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or  Increase  or 

Levy  Levy  Decrease  Levy  Decrease 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements $6,274.59  $3,885.58        —$2,389.01  $101.35        —$6,173.24 

Land 2,126.26  2,633.41  +507.15  3,435.46  -t-1,309.20 

$8,400.85  $6,518.99        —$1,881.86  $3,536.81        —$4,864.04 

The  net  reduction  in  taxes,  if  the  rate  on  buildings  were  halved, 
would  be  $1,881.86  or  $17.11  per  parcel.  The  maximum  which  would  be 
available  for  lowering  rents  would  be  $2,389.01,  or  $21.72  per  house. 
The  net  annual  returns  to  the  owners  of  the  land  would  be  less  by 
$507.15,  or  $4.63  per  lot.  Capitahzing  this  figure,t  the  sum  of  $92.60  is 
obtained  as  the  probable  depreciation  of  the  average  plot.J 

(3).    Sample  District  from  Ward  Three 

Increased 4 

Decreased 80 

84 

Ward  Three  presents  an  unusual  situation.  It  is  one  of  the  wards 
where  taxes  would  be  increased  by  the  plan  to  untax  buildings,  if 
adopted.**  Here  the  vacant  land  constitutes  considerably  less  than 
half  of  the  total  land  value,  ($21,802,040  as  compared  with  $49,024,620). 
The  peculiarity  of  this  ward  is  the  relatively  low  value  of  the  improve- 
ments when  compared  with  the  land  on  which  they  stand  ($21,331,680 
as  compared  with  $27,222,580). 

Single-family  houses  are  shown  once  more  by  the  classification  table 
to  be  the  predominant  type  of  improvement. 

*  The  selections  are   from  assessment  blocks  55,  65,  175  and  176. 
t  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  the  details  of  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  231-233. 
**  Cf.  supra,  p.  100. 

103 


Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Three,  Borough  of  Queens 


Number 


10,268 


Percentage 


Single-family  houses 6,971  68 

Two-family  houses 721  7 

Miscellaneous 2,576  25 


100 


The  sample  consists  of  84  parcels  from  the  district  bounded  by  Lin- 
coln Street,  Parsons  Avenue,  Madison  Avenue  and  Percy  Street,  and 
that  bounded  by  Amity  Street,  Bowne  Avenue,  Barclay  Street  and  Par- 
sons Avenue.  The  average  value  of  these  parcels  is  $7,251.  Only  four 
of  the  parcels  would  be  charged  with  heavier  taxes  under  the  proposed 
plan  to  untax  buildings.  The  average  assessed  value  of  these  four  par- 
cels is  $9,133,  a  figure  considerably  higher  than  the  general  average. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample  grouped  in  the  usual 
fashion  are  presented  in  the  following  table : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Three,  Borough  of  Queens 


Improve- 
ments 


Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $11,800 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 274,100 

Total $285,900 


$25,400 
297,800 


$37,200 
571,900 


$323,200 


$609,100 


The  changes  in  the  levies  involved  in  the  proposed  plans  are  set 
forth  in  the  table  which  follows : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of- Parcels  in  Sample  Section  from  Ward  Three, 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate  on  Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

ImproTements 

T.snd 

$212.00 
456.33 

$131.28 
565.18 

—$80.72 
+  108.85 

$3.42 
737.31 

—$208.58 
+280.98 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

J668.33 

$4,924.45 
5,350.24 

$696.46 

$3,049.50 
6,626.35 

+  $28.13 

—$1,874.95 
+  1,276.11 

$740.73 

$79.54 
8,644.54 

+  $72.40 

—$4,844.91 
+3.294.30 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$10,274.69 

$5,136.45 
5,806.57 

$9,675.85 

$3,180.78 
7,191.53 

—$598.84 

—$1,955.67 
+  1,384.96 

$8,724.08 

$82.96 
,9,381.85 

—$1,550.61 

—$5,053.49 
+3,575.28 

$10,943.02 

$10,372.31 

+  $570.71 

$9,464.81 

—$1,478.21 

104 


To  halve  the  rate  on  buildings  would  mean  a  net  reduction  in  taxes 
to  the  owners  of  the  84  parcels  of  $570.71,  or  $6.79  per  parcel.  The 
maximum  sum  available  from  this  source  for  lowering  rents  would  be 
$1,955.67,  or  $23.28  per  house.  The  owners  of  the  plots  would  receive 
$1,384.96  less  each  year  as  the  net  annual  return  from  their  land.  This 
would  be  a  reduction  on  each  lot  of  $16.49.  Capitalized*  this  would 
mean  a  depreciation  in  the  selling  value  of  each  lot  of  $329.80.t 

(4).    Sample  District  from  Ward  Four 

Increased 21 

Decreased 137 

158 

In  Ward  Four,  where  taxes  would  be  slightly  increased  by  the 
adoption  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings,^  the  vacant  land  is  of 
greater  value  than  the  improved  ($41,770,445  as  compared  with  $34,049,- 
690).  The  value  of  improvements  ($43,392,677),  however,  is  consider- 
ably greater  than  the  value  of  the  plots  on  which  they  stand. 

The  classification  of  buildings  given  below  shows  the  single-family 
house  to  be  the  typical  improvement. 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Four,  Borough  of  Queens 

Number  Percentage 

Single-family  houses 13,838  68 

Two-family  houses 4,021  19 

Miscellaneous 2,630  13 


Total 20,489  100 


The  sample  consists  of  158  parcels  of  an  average  value  of  $6,233. 
Twenty-one  of  these  parcels  would  have  increased  taxes,  while  in  137 
cases  the  taxes  would  be  decreased.  The  average  value  of  the  parcels 
whose  taxes  would  be  increased  ($6,900)  is  slightly  greater  than  the 
average  of  the  other  group. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  in  the  usual  manner,  are : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Ward  Four,  Borough  of  Queens 

Improve-  Land  Total 

ments 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $50,300  $94,600  $144,900 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 477,755  370,505  $848,260 

Total $528,055         $465,105  993,160 


*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  Detailed  statistics  for  this  sample  are  given  on  pages  234  and  235. 

t  Cf.  tupra,  p.  100. 

105 


The  increases  and  decreases  in  the  levies  presented  herewith  are 
obtained  by  extending  the  tax  rates  against  the  preceding  values : 


Taxes    Payable    by    Owners    of    Parcels    in    Sample    from    Ward    Four, 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 

Rate   on   Improvements 

Rate   on   Improvements 

System 

One 

-Half 

One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

$903.68 

$559.61 

—$344.07 

$8.79 

—$894.89 

Land 

1,699.57 

2,104.94 

+405.37 

2,746.05 

+  1,046.48 

$2,603.25 

$2,664.55 

+  $61.30 

$2,754.84 

+  $151.59 

Gkoup  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

$8,583.30 

$5,315.26 

—$3,268.04 

$138.64 

—$8,444.66 

Land 

6,656.46 

8,244.11 

+1,587.65 

10,755.02 

+4,098.56 

$15,239.76 

$13,559.37 

—$1,680.39 

$10,893.66 

—$4,346.10 

Total: 

Improvements 

$9,486.98 

$5,874.87 

—$3,612.11 

$147.43 

—$9,339.55 

Land 

8,356.03 

10,349.05 

+  1,993.02 

13,501.07 

+5,145.04 

$17,843.01 

$16,223.92 

—$1,619.09 

$13,648.50 

—$4,194.51 

If  the  rate  on  buildings  is  halved  the  net  taxes  of  the  owners  of  the 
parcels  in  the  sample  section  would  decrease  $1,619,09,  or  $10.25  per 
parcel.  The  maximum  available  from  this  source  for  the  reduction  of 
rents  would  be  $3,612.11,  or  $22.22  per  house.  Net  annual  returns  to 
land-owners  would  be  diminished  $1,993.02,  or  $12.61  per  lot.  Capital- 
ized,* this  amounts  to  $252.20,  which  represents  the  prospective  depre- 
ciation in  the  selling  value  of  each  lot  in  the  sample.f 

(5).    Sample  District  from  Ward  Five 

Increased 19 

Decreased 82 

101 

In  Ward  Five,  also,  taxes  would  be  increased. $  Here  it  is  not  the 
preponderance  of  vacant  land  which  is  of  greatest  importance,  for  only 
about  one-third  of  the  land  is  unimproved  ($9,966,360,  as  compared  with 
$29,854,500).  It  is  rather  the  low  percentage  of  building  value  to  land 
value  in  the  case  of  the  lands  which  are  improved  ($17,506,930,  improve- 
ments, to  $19,888,140,  lands). 

Almost  all  the  buildings  in  the  ward  are  shown  by  the  table  which 
follows,  to  be  one-family  houses  : 

*  Interest   rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  details  of  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.  236-239. 

J  Cf.  supra,  p.  100. 


106 


Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Five,  Borough  of  Queens 


Number 


One-family  houses 
Two-family  houses 

Tenements 

Miscellaneous .... 

Total 


5.332 


Percentage 


4,609 

86 

80 

2 

266 

5 

377 

7 

100 


The  sample  consists  of  101  parcels  of  an  average  value  of  $6,728. 
Nineteen  of  the  101  parcels  would  pay  heavier  taxes  under  the  proposed 
plans  to  untax  buildings,  while  82  would  pay  lighter  taxes.  The  parcels 
whose  taxes  would  be  increased  average  $7,321  apiece,  somewhat  higher 
than  the  average  in  the  other  group. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  in  the  usual  fashion,  are  given  in  the 
following  table : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Five,  Borough  of  Queens 


Improvements 

Land 

Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased. 
Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased . 

.  .        $37,600 
313,775 

$101,500 
226,625 

$139,100 
540,400 

Total 

. .      $351,375 

$328,125 

$679,500 

The  detailed  changes  which  would  result  in  the  tax  levies,  arrived 
at  by  extending  the  tax  rates  against  the  preceding  values,  are  given  in 
the  following  statement : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  Section  from  Ward  Five, 

Borough  of  Queens,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 

Rate  on   Improvements 
One-Half 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$675.52 
1,823.54 

$418.32 
2,258.48 

—$257.20 

-1-434.94 

$10.91 

2.946.34 

—$664.61 
-M. 122. 80 

$2,499.06 

$2,676.80 

-i-$177.74 

$2,957.25 

+  $458.19 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

55,637.25 
4,071.52 

$3,490.90 
5.042.63 

—$2,146.35 
-f-971.11 

$91.06 
6,578.47 

—$5,546.19 
4-2.506,95 

$9,708.77 

$8,533.53 

—$1,175.24 

$6,669.53 

—$3,039.24 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 

$6,312.77 
5,895.06 

$3,909.22 
7.301.11 

—$2,403.55 
-f  1,406. 05 

$101.97 
9,524.81 

—$6,210.80 
-f  3.629. 75 

$12,207.83 

$11,210.33 

—$997.50 

$9,626.78 

—$2,581.05 

107 


The  adoption  of  the  plan  to  tax  buildings  at  one-half  the  rate  used 
in  the  case  of  land  would  mean  $997.50  lower  taxes  for  the  owners  of  the 
101  parcels  in  the  sample  section.  This  is  $9.88  per  parcel.  The  maxi- 
mum amount  available  for  decreasing  rents  would  be  $2,403.55,  or  $23.80 
per  house.  Net  annual  returns  to  land  owners  would  be  diminished 
$1,406.05,  or  $13.92  per  lot.  Capitalized,*  this  sum  becomes  $278.40, 
which  represents  the  probable  depreciation  in  the  selling  value  of  each 
parcel  in  the  sample.f 


F.     SUMMARY 

Large  quantities  of  vacant  landj  combine  with  a  fairly  low  ratio  of 
building  to  land  value  in  the  improved  parcels**  to  cause  a  slight  in- 
crease in  the  total  taxes  charged  to  the  real  estate  of  Queens  under  the 
plan  to  exempt  improvements.  If  the  vacant  land  be  eliminated  from 
consideration,  the  values  of  the  improved  parcels  are  found  to  form  a 
ratio  well  within  the  standard  composite  ratio  for  the  borough.  An 
overwhelming  majority  of  the  individual  parcels  included  within  the 
samples  taken  in  the  various  wards  show  decreases  in  taxes  as  the  proba- 
ble results  of  the  proposed  changes.  The  parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased  were  in  three  wards  out  of  four,  the  more  expensive  parcels 
in  the  group. 

*  Interest   rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  For  the  details  of  this  sample,  cf.  infra,  pp.    240-242. 

X  The  exact  figures  are: 

Assessed  values  of  land: 

Vacant $139,412,500 

Total 280,678.120 

Number  of  Parcels: 

Vacant 82,065 

Total 134,987 

**  This  is  indicated  by  the  following  figures: 

Improved  Parcels: 

Land $141,265,620 

Improvements 166,008,357 


108 


VII.     EFFECTS  IN  RICHMOND  UNDER  CERTAIN 
ASSUMED  CONDITIONS* 

Note  has  already  been  madef  of  the  decrease  in  general  city  taxes 
which  would  result  in  the  Borough  of  Richmond  in  case  the  project  to 
reduce  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  were  adopted.  It  remains,  however, 
to  examine  the  probable  effects  of  that  step  within  the  limits  of  the 
borough. 

A.     TAX  RATES 

The  effects  of  the  proposed  plan  upon  the  tax  rates  in  the  Borough 
of  Richmond  is  illustrated  by  the  following  graph.l 

RICHMOND 
RATES  UPON  THE  VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  PROPERTY  UNDER  THE  PRES- 
ENT SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX 
BUILDINGS 


iw 

•' 

ES 

0 

a 

1 

- 
i 

§ 

-I 

z 

o 

- 

S 

I 
z 

- 

93X 

s 

PRCSCNT 
SYSTEM 


'  RATC.  OH  LAMO 


RATC   on 
IMPHOVEHEHTS    OHB- 
OMC-HUMDaEOTH      RATE 
ON    LAND 


*  The  most  important  condition  is  that  assessed  values  would  remain  constant.     Cf.  tupra,  p.  l8. 

t  Supra,  pp.  22-23. 

j  The  statistics  upon  which  this  graph  is  based  are  presented  in  detail  in  the  table  on  p.  21. 


109 


B.     DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  BURDEN  AMONG  THE 
ELEMENTS  IN  THE  TAX  BASE. 

The  effects  which  may  be  expected  upon  the  burdens  of  taxation 
thrown  upon  the  various  elements  in  the  tax  base,  in  case  the  proposed 
plans  to  untax  buildings  were  adopted,  are  made  clear  by  the  accom- 
panying graph : 

RICHMOND 

DISTRIBUTION   OF   TAXES   AMONG   THE   ELEMENTS   OF   THE  TAX   BASE 

UNDER  THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  AND  UNDER  THE  PROPOSED 

PLANS  TO  UNTAX  BUILDINGS 

PRESENT   SYSTEM 


(a) 

LAND 
$787.4-54-.  87 

IMPROVEIVIENTS 
$720,011.52 

RATE  ON  IMPROVEMENTS  ONE-HALF  RATE  ON  LAND 


(a) 

LAND 
^981.307.92 

IMPROVEMENTS 
$448,630.79 

RATE  ON   IMPROVEMENTS 
ONE  ONE-HUNDREDTH  RATE  ON  LAND 


(W 


(a) 


LAND 
$I,Z95,Z70.97 


(a)    PERSONAL  PROPERTY    $7A.2I0.'E3 
Ih)   IMPROVEIVIENTS     $  11.843.34. 


C.     EFFECTS  IN  THE  VARIOUS  ASSESSMENT   SECTIONS  OF 
THE  BOROUGH 

The  wards  are  used  in  Richmond  as  sub-divisions  for  assessment 
purposes.     Their  boundaries  are  shown  on  the  accompanying  map. 

The  effects  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings  upon  the 
amounts  payable  as  taxes  in  the  various  wards  may  be  ascertained  from 
an  inspection  of  the  ratios  given  in  the  following  table: 


110 


B  A  y 


^OROUG/y 
RICHMOND 


111 


Assessed  Values  and  Ratios  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of  the  Borough 

OF  Richmond 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:    89.51:60.49) 


Assessed  Values 

Taxes 
Payable 

Improve- 

Land 

Ratios 

ments 

Ward  1 

$12,415,460 

$11,459,630 

52.1:47.9 

Decreased 

Ward  2 

7,049,440 

8,819,005 

44.4:55.6 

Decreased 

Wards 

8,251,483 

7,895,842 

51.1:48.9 

Decreased 

Ward  4 

5,106,155 

7,815,680 

39.5:60.5 

Stationary 

Wards 

3,864,835 

4,258,951 

47.8:52.2 

Decreased 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  proportion  of  building  value  is  greater  than 
that  in  the  standard  composite  ratio  in  all  cases  except  that  of  Ward 
Four,  where  it  is  substantially  identical  with  it.  This  means  a  decrease 
in  taxes  for  all  the  wards  except  Ward  Four,  where  they  will  remain 
stationary. 

The  amounts  of  the  increases  and  decreases  in  the  levies  on  the  real 
estate  of  the  various  wards  are  shown  in  the  following  table : 

Tax  Levies  Upon  the  Real  Estate  (a)  in  the  Various  Assessment  Sections  of 

THE  Borough  of  Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

the  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Levies 

Increases  and  Decreases 

Present 
System 

Rate 

on 

Improvements 

One-Half 

Rate  on 
Improvements 
One  One- 
Hundredth 

Rate 

on 

ImprovementB 

One-Half 

Rate  on 
Improvements 
One  One- 
Hundredth 

Ward  I: 

Land 

$216,631.70 

$269,961.38 

$356,333.76 

Improvements 

234,700.61 

146,239.22 

3,859.97 

—$35,131.71 

$451,332.31 

$416,200.60 

$360,193.73 

—$91,138.58 

Ward  2: 

Land 

$166,713.59 

$207,754.59 

$274,224.31 

Improvements 

133,261.91 

83,033.94 

2,191.67 

—9.186.97 

$299,975.50 

$290,788.53 

$276,413.98 

—33,559.52 

Ward  3: 

Land 

$149,262.21 

$186,007.09 

$245,518.84 

Improvements 

155,985.21 

97,192.57 

2.565.39 

— 22.047.7* 

$305,247.42 

$283,199.66 

$248,084.23 

—57.103.19 

Ward  4: 

Land 

$147,746.83 

$184,118.66 

$243,026 .  22 

Improvements 

96,526.24 

60,144.38 

1,587.50 

—10.03 

$244,273.07 

$244,263.04 

$244,613.72 

(b)  +340.65 

Ward  5: 

Land 

$80,510.78 

$100,330.66 

$132,430.80 

Improvements 

73,060.45 

45,523.12 

1.201.58 

—7,717.45 

$153,571.23 

$145,853.78 

$133,632.38 

—19.938.85 

All  Wards: 

Land 

$760,865.11 

$948,172.39 

$1,251,533.94 

Improvements 

693,534.43 

432,133.23 

11.406.10 

—74,093.92 

$1,454,399.54 

$1,380,305.62 

$1,262,940.04 

—191,459. 59 

(a)  Not  including  the  "Real  Estate  of  Corporations." 

(b)  The  relationship  between  building  and  land  in  Ward  Four  (39.516:60.484)  is  almost  identical 
with  the  standard  composite  ratio  (39.51:60.49).  Owing  to  the  fact  that  the  tax  rates  are  carried  out  only 
to  the  fifth  decimal  point  the  irregularity  develops  of  a  decrease  in  case  the  rate  on  improvements  is  halved 
and  an  increase  in  case  the  rate  is  made  one  one-hundredth  of  the  rate  on  buildings.  The  amounts  ar« 
negligible,  however. 


112 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  decreases  which  occur  so  regularly  are  re- 
latively slight  in  amount,  the  largest,  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax 
rate  on  buildings,  being  $35,131.71  in  Ward  One. 

I).     EFFECTS    IN    SELECTED    SECTIONS    OF   THE   BOROUGH 

(1).     Sample  District  from  Ward  One 

Increased   3 

Decreased 112 

115 

In.  Ward  One  of  the  Borough  of  Richmond  the  value  of  the  vacant 
lands  is  less  than  one-third  of  the  total  land  value  ($3,352,543  as  com- 
pared with  $1,459,630).  The  value  of  the  improvements,  however,  is 
about  one-third  greater  than  the  value  of  the  lots  on  which  they  stand, 
(improvements,  $12,415,460,  improved  land,  $8,107,087).  It  will  be 
readily  seen  that  the  typical  parcel  in  this  ward  would  receive  a  sub- 
stantial reduction  under  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings. 

Single-family   houses    are   the   predominant   type   of    improvement, 

constituting,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  table,  nearly  sixty  per  cent. 

of  the  total  value : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  One,  Borough  of  Richmond 

Number    Percentage 

Single-family  houses 3,095  59 

Two-f amUy  houses 914  17 


Tenements . 


448 


Miscellaneous  buildings 810  15 

5,267  100 

The  sample  from  this  ward  consists  of  115  parcels  of  an  average 
value  of  $3,140.  In  every  case  except  three  the  adoption  of  the  plan 
to  untax  buildings  would  cause  a  decrease  in  taxes.  The  average 
value  of  the  three  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  is  $2,033, 
which  is  considerably  below  the  value  of  the  average  of  all  the  parcels. 

The  assessed  value  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample  arranged  accord- 
ing to  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  are 
given  in  the  following  table : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  District  from  Ward  One, 
Borough  of  Richmond 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $1,950  $4,150  $6,100 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 254,850  100,145  354,995 

Total $256,800         $104,295         $361,095 


113 


By  applying  the  tax  rates  to  the  foregoing  values  the  results  pre- 
sented in  the  following  table  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  District  from  Ward  One, 

Borough  of  Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under 

THE  Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 

Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Present 
System 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Geo  UP  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 


Levy 


Levy 


$36.86 
78.45 


$22.97 
97.76 


-$13.89 
-1-19.31 


$0.61 
129.04 


$115.31 


$4,817.66 
1,893.13 


$120.73 


$3,001.83 
2,359.18 


-|-$5.42 


-$1,815,83 
-1-466 .  05 


$129.65 


$79.23 
3,113.98 


$6,710.79 


$4,854.52 
1,971.58 


$3,024.80 
2,456.94 


-$1,349.78 


-$1,829.72 
-i-485.36 


$3,193.21 


$79.84 
3,243.02 


$5,481.74 


-$1,344. 


$3,322.86 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


-$36.25 
-1-50.59 


-$4,738.43 
-1-1,220.85 


-83,517.58 


-$4,774.68 
-1-1,271.44 


The  adoption  of  the  half-rate  plan  would  mean  a  net  reduction  in 
the  taxes  on  these  parcels  of  $1,344.36,  or  $11.69  per  parcel.  The 
total  reduction  in  the  taxes  on  the  houses  is  $1,829.72.  This  repre- 
sents the  maximum  available  from  this  source  for  the  reduction  of 
rents.     It  amounts  to  $15.91  per  parcel. 

The  increase  in  the  tax  on  land  would  be  $485.36.  Capitalized* 
this  increase  amounts  to  $9,707.20,  which  may  be  accepted  as  the  proba- 
ble depreciation  in  selling  value.  This  would  mean  a  depreciation 
of  $84.41  per  parcel.f 


(2).     Sample  District  from  Ward  Tzvo 


Increase 
Decrease 


2 
103 


105 

In  Ward  Two,  Borough  of  Richmond,  as  in  Ward  One,  the  vacant 
land  does  not  form  a  particularly  large  share  of  the  total  land  value, 
being  less  than  one-third  ($2,545,005  as  compared  with  $8,819,005). 
Here  also  the  improvements  are  valued  at  a  considerably  larger  sum 
than  the  plots  on  which  they  stand,  (improvements,  $7,049,440,  im- 
proved land,  $6,274,000). 


*  Interest   rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  The  details  for  this  section  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  243-245. 


114 


Almost  all  the  buildings  in  this  ward  are  single-family  houses.    The 
classification  follows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Two,  Borough  of  Richmond 


Ntimber    Percentage 


Single- family  houses. . . . 

Two-family  houses 

Miscellaneous  buildings. 


2,245 

77 

346 

12 

337 

11 

2,928 


100 


The  sample  from  Ward  Two  consists  of  105  parcels,  with  an 
average  value  of  $4,461.  In  the  case  of  every  one  of  these  parcels 
except  two  the  adoption  of  the  plans  to  untax  buildings  would  cause 
a  decrease  in  taxes.    These  two  parcels  have  an  average  value  of  $8,000. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  in  the  usual  fashion,  are  as  follows: 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Two,  Borough  of 
Richmond 


Improvements        Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased. 


$5,300 


$10,700 


$16,000 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased . 


Total. 


296,850 


155,550 


452,400 


$302,150         $166,250         $468,400 


Applying  the  tax  rates  to   the   foregoing  values   the   results   pre- 
sented in  the  following  table  are  obtained : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Two,  Borough  of 

Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Levy 

Increase  or 
Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$100.19 
202.27 

$62.43 
252.07 

—$.37.76 
+49.80 

$1.65 
332.71 

—$98.54 
+130.44 

Gkoup  B: 

$302.46 

$314.50 

+  $12.04 

$334.36 

+  $31.90 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

$5,611.62 
2,940.50 

$3,496.54 
3,664.38 

—$2,115.08 
+723.88 

$92.29 
4,836.78 

—$5,519.33 
+1,896.28 

Total: 

Improvements 
Land 


$8,552.12 

$7,160.92 

-$1,391.20 

$4,929.07 

—$3,623.05 

$5,711.81 

$3,558.97 

—$2,152.84 

$93.94 

—$5,617.87 

3,142.77 

3,916.45 

+773.68 

5,169.49 

+2,026.72 

$8,854 .  58 


The  net  reduction 
buildings  would  be  $1 


in  taxes  under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rates  on 
,379.16,  or  $13.13  per  parcel.     The  reduction  in 


115 


taxes  on  l)uildiiigs  alone  would  be  $2,152.84.  This  represents  the 
maximum  available  from  this  source  for  the  reduction  of  rents.  It 
amounts  to  $20.50  per  parcel.  The  increase  in  the  tax  on  land  would 
be  $773.68.  Since  the  net  annual  returns  to  the  owners  of  this  land 
would  be  decreased  by  this  amount  the  selling  value  of  the  land  might 
be  expected  to  decrease.  Capitalizing  this  decrease*  the  sum  of 
$15,473.60  is  obtained  as  the  decrease  in  the  selHng  value  of  the  parcels. 
This  amounts  to  $147.37  per  parcel.f 

(3).     Sample  District  from  Ward  Three 

Increase    3 

Decrease    102 

105 

Ward  Three,  Borough  of  Richmond  is  in  all  essentials  similar 
to  the  two  wards  just  described.  The  value  of  the  vacant  lots  is 
approximately  one-third  of  the  total  land  value  ($2,378,320  as  compared 
with  $7,895,842).  The  value  of  improvements  again  exceeds  the  value 
of  the  plots  on  which  they  stand  by  a  considerable  margin  ($8,251,483 
as  compared  with  $5,517,552). 

Here  again  single-family  houses  predominate.  The  classification 
of  the  buildings  follows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Three,  Borough  of  Richmond 

Number    Percentage 

Single-family  houses 3,542  77 

Two-family  houses 169  4 

Miscellaneous 899  19 

4,610  100 

The  sample  consists  of  105  parcels,  the  average  value  of  which 
is  $3,380.  In  only  three  cases  out  of  the  105  would  taxes  be  increased 
under  the  plan  to  untax  buildings.  The  average  value  of  these  three 
parcels  is  $4,066,  which  is  somewhat  above  the  average  value  of  all  the 
parcels. 

The  assessed  values,  grouped  in  the  usual  fashion,  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Three,  Borough  of 
Richmond ___^ 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $3,800  $8,400  $12,200 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 231,855  110,800  342,655 

Total $235,655         $119,200         $354,855 

•  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  The  details  for  this  parcel  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  pp.  246-247. 

116 


When  the  tax  rates  are  applied  to  these  values  the  results  pre- 
sented in  the  following  table  are  obtained : 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in   Sample  from  Ward  Three, 
OF  Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 
Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Borough 


Present 
System 


Levy 


Rate   on   Improvementa 
One-Half 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Levy 


Increase  or 
Decrease 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  increased: 

Improvements 

Land 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements ... 

Land 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 


1230.62 


-$27.07 
+39.09 


$242.64 


$1.18 
261.20 


$262.38 


—$70.65 
+  102.41 


+  $31.76 


$4,382.96 
2,094.55 

$2,730.97 
2,610.18 

—$1,651.99 
+515.63 

$72.08 
3.445.29 

—$4,310.88 
+1,350.74 

$6,477.51 

$5,341.15 

—$1,136.36 

$3,517.37 

—$2,960.14 

$4,454.79 
2,253.34 

$2,775.73 
2,808.06 

—$1,679.06 

+554.72 

$73.26 
3,706.49 

—$4,381.53 
+1,463.15 

The  adoption  of  the  plan  to  halve  the  taxes  on  buildings  would 
result  in  a  net  decrease  in  the  tax  on  parcels  in  the  sample  of  $1,124.34, 
or  $10.71  per  parcel.  The  decrease  in  the  tax  on  buildings  alone  would 
be  $1,679.06,  or  $15.99  per  house,  which  figures  represent  the  largest 
amounts  available  for  reductions  in  rents  from  this  source.  The  increase 
in  the  tax  on  land  amounts  to  $554.72.  Capitalized  this  sum  gives 
$11,094.40,  or  $105.66  per  plot.  These  amounts  represent  the  proba- 
ble decrease  in  the  selling  value  of  the  plots.f 

(4).     Sample  District  from  Ward  Four 

Increase    2 

Decrease    39 


41 
In  Ward  Four  vacant  land  forms  a  somewhat  higher  percentage 
of  the  total  land  value  than  was  the  case  in  the  wards  thus  far  con- 
sidered. Here  nearly  fifty  per  cent  of  the  total  land  value  consists 
of  vacant  lands,  ($3,722,170  as  compared  with  $7,815,680).  Here  again, 
however,  improvements  exceed  in  value  the  plots  on  which  they  stand, 
($5,106,155  as  compared  with  $4,093,510). 

The  buildings  in  this  ward  are  almost  entirely  single-family  houses, 
the  classification  follows : 


*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  Details   for   this  property   are   given   in   an  appendix. 


Cf.  infra, 


117 


Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Four,  Borough  of  Richmond 


Number    Percentage 


Single-family  houses 

Tenements 

Miscellaneous  buildings . 


3,011 

78 

128 

3 

749 

19 

100 


The  sample  from  this  ward  consists  of  41  parcels  whose  average 
value  is  3657.  In  case  of  39  out  of  the  41  parcels  the  tax  would  be 
decreased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings.  The  average 
value  of  the  two  parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  is  $5,750, 
which  is  considerably  above  the  value  of  the  average  of  all. 

The  assessed  values  of  the  parcels  in  the  sample  section  arranged 
in  the  usual  fashion,  are  as  follows : 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Four,  Borough  of 
Richmond 


Improvements       Land 


Total 


Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased. 


$4,000 


$7,500 


$11,500 


Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased . 


Total. 


100,000 


$104,000 


38,450 


138,450 


$45,950         $149,950 


Applying  the  tax  rates  to  the  above  values,  the  results  presented 
in  the  following  table  are  obtained  : 

Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Four,  Borough 

OF  Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 
System 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One-Half 


Rate   on   Improvements 
One  One-Hundredth 


Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

$75.62 

$47.12 

—$28.50 

$1.24 

—$74.38 

Land 

141.78 

176.68 

4-34.90 

233.21 

-1-91.43 

$217.40 

$223.80 

-|-$6.40 

$234.45 

-f$17.05 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  decreased: 

Improvements 

$1,890.39 

$1,177.88 

—$712.51 

$31.09 

—$1,859.30 

Land 

726.85 

905.79 

-hl7S,94 

1,195.59 

4-468.74 

Total: 

Improvements. 
Land 


$2,083.67  —$533.57 


$1,966.01  $1,225.00  —$741.01 

868.63  1,082.47  4-213.84 


$32.33 
1,428.80 


-$1,390.56 


-$1,933.68 
4-560.17 


$2,307.47 


$1,461.13 


It  will  be  noted  that  the  net  reduction  in  taxes  on  the  parcels  in 
the  sample,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  half-rate  plan,  would  be  $527.17, 


118 


or  $12.86  per  parcel.  The  reduction  in  the  taxes  on  buildings  alone 
would  be  $741.01,  or  $18.08  per  house.  These  figures  represent  the 
greatest  reductions  in  rents  which  can  be  hoped  for  from  this  direction. 
The  increase  in  the  tax  on  land  amounts  to  $213.84.  CapitaHzed,* 
this  amounts  to  $4,276.80,  which  is  the  probable  reduction  in  the 
selling  value  of  the  land.     The  probable  reduction  per  lot  is  $104.31.t 

(5).     Sample  District  from  Ward  Five 

Increase    3 

Decrease    119 

122 

The  situation  in  Ward  Five  is  in  no  respect  unusual  when  com- 
pared with  that  in  other  Richmond  wards.  Considerably  less  than 
one-half  the  total  land  value  is  made  up  of  vacant  lots  ($1,735,886  as 
compared  with  $4,258,951).  The  value  of  the  improvements  once  more 
exceeds  by  a  substantial  amount  the  value  of  the  plots  on  which  the 
buildings  stand   ($3,864,835  as  compared  with  $2,523,065). 

Single-family  dwellings  form  the  chief  type  of  building.  Thd 
table  classifying  the  buildings  follows : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  Ward  Five,  Borough  of  Richmond 

Number    Percentage 

Single-family  houses 2,326  68 

Miscellaneous 1,101  32 

3,427  100 

The  sample  from  Ward  Five  consists  of  122  parcels,  whose  average 
value  is  $2,950.  In  only  three  cases  would  taxes  be  increased  under 
the  proposed  plan  to  untax  buildings.  The  average  value  of  these 
three  parcels  is  $2,233,  which,  as  was  the  case  in  Ward  One,  is  some- 
what lower  than  the  value  of  the  average  parcel. 

The  assessed  values,  arranged  in  the  usual  fashion,  are  as  follows: 

Assessed  Values  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Five,  Borough  of 
Richmond 

Improvements       Land  Total 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased $2,175  $3,525  $5,700 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  decreased 241,600  111,650  353,250 

Total $243,775         $115,175         $358,950 

Applying  the  tax  rates  to  the  preceding  values,  the  following 
results  are  obtained : 

*  Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  Details  for  this  sample  are  given  in  an  appendix.     Cf.  infra,  p.  251. 

119 


Taxes  Payable  by  Owners  of  Parcels  in  Sample  from  Ward  Five,  Borough 

OF  Richmond,  Under  the  Present  System  and  Under  the 

Proposed  Plans  to  Untax  Buildings 


Present 

Rate   on   Improvements 

Rate   on   Improvements 

System 

One-Half 

One  One-Hundredth 

Increase  or 

Increase  or 

Levy 

Levy 

Decrease 

Levy 

Decrease 

Group  A: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 

be  increased: 

Improvements 

$41.12 

$25.62 

— $15.50 

$0. 

68             —$40.44 

Land 

66.64 

83.04 

+  16.40 

109. 

61                -t-42.97 

Group  B: 

Parcels  whose  taxes  would 
be  decreased: 

Improvements 

Land 

Total: 

Improvements 

Land 


$107.76 


$4,567.18  $2,845.76        —$1,721.42 

2,210.62  2,630.21  -|-519.59 


$110.29 


$75.11        —$4,492.07 
3,471.72  +1,361.10 


$6,677.80 

$5,475.97 

—$1,201.83 

$3,546.83 

—$3,130.97 

$4,608.30 

$2,871.38 

—$1,736.92 

$75.79 

—$4,532.51 

2,177.26 

2,713.25 

+535.99 

3,581.33 

+1,404.07 

-$1,200.93 


The  total  net  reduction  in  the  taxes  on  the  parcels  in  this  sample, 
under  the  plan  to  halve  the  tax  rate  on  buildings  would  be  $1,200.93, 
or  $9.84  per  parcel.  The  total  reduction  on  buildings  alone  amounts 
to  $1,736.92,  or  $14.24  per  house.  The  increased  burden  of  the  owners 
of  lots  would  be  $535.99  annually,  or  $4.39  per  plot.  Capitalized* 
this  would  mean  a  decrease  of  $87.80  in  the  selling  value  of  the  average 
lot.t 

E.     SUMMARY 


It  is  in  spite  of  the  presence  of  a  large  quantity  of  vacant  land$  that 
the  Borough  of  Richmond  as  a  whole  would  receive  a  reduction  in  taxes 
under  the  plan  to  reduce  the  tax  rate  on  buildings.  With  the  vacant 
land  eliminated  the  land  value  of  the  borough  would  be  $26,515,184. 
The  value  of  the  improvements  in  the  borough  is  $36,687,373.  This 
sum  forms  a  very  high  ratio  with  the  assessed  value  of  improved  lands 
— approximately  58 :42.  When  it  is  recalled  that  the  standard  composite 
ratio  for  Richmond  is  39.51 :60.49,  there  is  no  cause  for  wonder  over 
the  predominance  of  decreases  among  the  parcels  in  the  various  sample 
sections.  In  two  of  the  wards  of  Richmond  the  samples  show  that  the 
parcels  whose  taxes  would  be  increased  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  are 
less  valuable  than  the  average  while  the  samples  from  the  remaining 
three  wards  show  the  opposite  condition. 

*  Interest   rate,  five  per  cent. 

t  Details  for  this  sample  are  given  in   an  appendix.      Cf.   infra,   pp.   252-254. 
JThe  exact  figures  for  1914  are: 
Assessed  values  of  Land: 

Vacant $13,733,924 

Total 40,249,1Q8 

Number  of  Parcels: 

Vacant 19.092 

Total 34,245 

120 


VOL     VARIOUS  DISTURBING  FACTORS  TAKEN 
INTO  ACCOUNT 

The  foregoing  analysis  has  been  made  under  certain  very  definite 
pre-suppositions.  Conditions  have  been  assumed  tO  be  static  vs^here 
they  are  undoubtedly  dynamic.  Shrewd' guesses  as  to  the  degree  and 
direction  of  the  changes  which  are  to  be  expected  may  be  made  by  those 
familiar  with  real  estate  conditions  in  the  city,  but  after  all  they  would 
be  merely  guesses.  It  was  thought  best  to  present  the  material  under 
the  given  assumptions  and  to  allow  each  individual  to  modify  it  in 
accordance  with  his  own  opinions  as  to  what  may  be  expected  to  happen. 
However,  it  is  possible  to  outline  how  various  kinds  of  changes  which 
may  occur  would  modify  the  forecasts  of  probable  efifects  set  forth  in 
detail  in  the  preceding  pages  and  in  this  section  an  attempt  will  be  made 
to  do  this  briefly. 

It  will  be  recalled,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  tax  rates  were  calcu- 
lated on  t*he  assumption  that  the  assessed  values  would  remain  constant. 
Even  though,  the  tax  rate  on  land  would  be  increased  considerably,  the 
assessed  values  of  the  land,  according  to  the  calculations,  would  remain 
exactly  the  same.  Yet,  if  the  selling  price  of  land,  which  is  the  standard 
for  assessments,  rests  upon  the  annual  net  return  from  the  land  and  if 
the  tax  on  land  cannot  be  shifted*  to  the  tenant,  the  reduced  net  annual 
return  due  to  the  increased  taxes  will  certainly  be  reflected  in  a  dimin- 
ished selling  value  of  the  land  and,  consequently,  in  a  smaller  assessed 
value.  It  is  seen,  therefore,  that  in  the  attempt  to  make  the  problem 
simple,  an  increase  in  land  values  has  in  reality  been  already  assumed — 
an  increase  equal  in  amount  to  the  capitaHzation  of  the  new  burden  on 
land.  This  element  must  now  be  taken  into  account.  In  Manhattan  this 
new  burden,  if  the  half-rate  plan  is  adopted,  is  calculated  at  $13,516,- 
767.21.t  To  raise  the  given  amounts  at  the  given  rates,  taking  into 
account  the  depreciation  in  values  under  the  heavier  rate,  assumes  that 
in  Manhattan  land  values  must  increase  enough  to  counterbalance  a  de- 
preciation of  $270,335,344$  or  nearly  eight  and  one-half  per  cent.  In 
other  words,  if  the  statements  made  in  the  preceding  sections  are  to  hold 
strictly  true,  the  income  from  the  land  on  Manhattan  must  increase  by 
a  sum  large  enough  when  capitalized  to  equal  $270,335,344.     What  the 


*  Cf.  infra,  p.  124  et  seq. 

fThis   is   under   the   assumption   that   the   tax   is    imposed   suddenly    and   that   land   value    is    not 
given  an  opportunity  to  slip  from  the  rolls  through  a  process  of  discounting  the   anticipated  burden. 
t  $13,516,767.21,  capitalized.     Interest  rate,  five  per  cent. 

121 


prospects  are  for  such  an  increase  in  Manhattan  land  values  must  be 
left  to  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  local  situation. 

Another  assumption  involved  has  been  that  the  change  itself  would 
not  set  loose  forces  which  would  increase  land  values.  But  some  of  the 
supporters  of  the  plan  find  in  it  a  cause  for  increased  values  which,  they 
believe,  would  be  of  considerable  importance.  If  the  tax  on  buildings 
were  reduced,  they  argue,  building  activity  and  general  economic  pros- 
perity would  be  so  stimulated  that  an  increase  in  land  values  would 
result  which  would  probably  equal  any  depreciation  which  might  be 
expected  because  of  the  increased  burden  on  the  land.  Since  there  is 
no  way  of  measuring  the  stimulus  referred  to,  or  its  effect  upon  land 
values,  little  can  be  said  of  the  degree  of  importance  which  the  argument 
deserves.  It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  remission  of  certain 
charges  which  have  formerly  been  paid  by  buildings,  may  under  certain 
conditions  be  expected  to  stimulate  the  production  of  those  articles  for 
which  the  sums,  thus  released,  would  be  spent.  One  of  these  articles 
for  which  the  demand  would  be  stimulated  from  this  source  would  doubt- 
less be  buildings.  But  there  would  also  be  others  and  what  they  would 
be  depends  upon  the  desires  and  spending  habits  of  the  various  indi- 
viduals whose  taxes  would  be  decreased.  On  the  other  hand  there  must 
be  taken  into  account  a  possible  reduction  in  the  purchasing  power*  of 
those  who  are  called  upon  to  pay  higher  taxes  on  the  land.  On  the 
whole  it  would  seem  very  rash  to  assume  that  all  which  might  be  taken 
from  the  land  owner  in  increased  taxes  would  return  to  him  in  increased 
net  returns  from  his  lands.  Probably  the  stimulus  would  return  to  him 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  amount  by  which  his  taxes  would  be 
increased. 

If  for  any  reason  there  is  not  an  improvement  in  the  real  estate 
situation  at  least  equal  in  degree  to  that  specified  above,  there  will  be 
a  variety  of  interesting  effects.  In  the  first  place  diminished  land  values, 
due  to  the  discounting  of  the  heavier  rate  on  land,  would  decrease  the 
size  of  the  total  tax  base.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  proposed  bill,  if 
the  budget  is  not  to  be  decreased,  the  effect  of  this  would  be  to  raise  the 
rates  of  taxation  on  all  the  elements  in  the  tax  base.  Land  would  be 
taxed  at  a  slightly  heavier  rate  but  because  of  the  discounting  process 
would  pay  a  somewhat  smaller  amount  as  taxes  than  under  the  condi- 
tions assumed  in  the  early  sections.  Whatever  is  cut  from  the  burden 
on  land  would  fall  to  the  share  of  the  other  elements  in  the  tax  base. 
The  rate  on  buildings  would  be  greater,  and  the  prospective  benefits  in 
the  way  of  lower  rents  and  decreased  carrying  charges  thereby  dimin- 
ished. The  rate  on  personal  property  and  special  franchises  would 
also  be  increased  with  results  which  can  be  only  a  matter  for  con- 
jecture. 

Finally,  the  calculations  have  been  made  as  though  no  changes 
were  to  take  place  during  the  period  in  which  the  plan  was  being  put 


*  At  least  a  temporary  reduction. 

122 


into  operation.  The  proposed  reduction  would  be  made  gradually,  ten 
per  cent,  per  year,  and  this  must  be  kept  in  mind  in  considering  the 
possibilities  in  regard  both  to  the  discounting  of  the  changes  and  to 
the  increases  in  land  values. 

To  summarize,  the  effects  as  outlined  in  detail  in  this  report  pre- 
suppose a  moderate  increase  in  the  yield  from  land.  If  this  improve- 
ment does  not  materialize,  the  new  burden  upon  real  estate  will  be 
somewhat  less  than  indicated  while  the  reductions  in  the  taxes  on  build- 
ings and  the  prospective  decreases  in  rents  will  also  be  slightly  less. 
That  is,  whatever  less  of  evil  may  accrue  to  the  landowner,  that  much 
more  of  good  will  be  kept  from  the  tenant.  If  there  should  be  a  greater 
improvement  in  the  land  values  than  that  indicated,  the  transition 
would  be  made  correspondingly  easier  for  the  land  owners.  And,  last  of 
all,  proper  allowance  must  be  made  in  interpreting  the  data  for  the  fact 
that  the  plan  proposes  a  gradual  reduction  stretching  over  a  period  of 
years,  rather  than  a  sudden  one,  as  is  assumed  in  the  analysis. 


123 


IX.   THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  FOREGOING  DATA 

FOR   CERTAIN   ECONOMIC   CLASSES 

IN   THE   COMMUNITY 


A.     INTRODUCTORY 

(1).     The  Necessity  of  Considering  the  Incidence  of  the  Tax 

Most  of  the  statements  which  have  been  made  thus  far  in  regard  to 
increased  or  decreased  taxes  'have  referred  only  fo  the  amounts  which 
the  owners  of  the  properties  in  question  would  be  called  up6n  to  pay 
in  taxes  under  the  proposed  plans.  .They  have  been  of  interest  directly 
to  the  owji£tgk,of  real  estate.  They  shed  li^ht  on  the  question  of  the 
effects  of  the  proposed  plan  upon  the  tax  bills  of  the  owners  of  real 
property.  But  as  is  often  the  case,  the  less  immediate  effects  are  here 
the  more  important  ones  and  none  of  these  has  thus  far  been  taken  into 
account.  That  ope  individual  pays  a  greater  or  smaller  tax  bill  to  the 
city  than  he  did  before  may  or  may  not  be  of  significance.  Everything 
depends  on  whether  or  not  the  tax  is  shifted.  The  importance  of  the 
change  cannot  be  measured  unless  it  is  known  whether  the  ^payer  of 
the  tax  is  the  bearer  also.  If  the  beardr  is  some  oth^r  person  than  the 
payer,  he  must  be  'found,  and  the  amount  of  his  new  burden  calculated 
if  the  truly  important  effects  of  the  chSnge  are  to  be  grasped.  It  means 
little  to  the  landlord  to  have  his  taxefs  increased  if  he  cin  pass  the  in- 
crease along  to  the  tenant  in  higher  rents,  but  the  change  in  this  case 
would  mean  as  much  to  the  tefiant  as  though  he  paid  the  tax  directly. 
It  is  evident  that. there  can  be  no  intelligent  discussion  of  the  effects 
of  the  change  which  does  not  take  into  consideration  the  incidence  of  the 
tax. 

(2).    The  Incidence  of  the  Real  Estate  Tax 

There  is  perhaps  no  principle  of  economics  upon  which  there  is 
more  unanimous  agreement  than  that  which  governs^  the  return  to  land. 
It  is  generally  recognized  that  of '  t4ie  amount  which  can  .be  "made" 
through  the  utilization  of  a  piece  of  improved  real  estate,  ther^  is  a  part 
which  is  properly  a  return  on  that  portion  of  the  property  which  can  be 
removed  and  replaced,  sold  off  "and  restored.  In  the  second  place  there 
is  part  which  fs  properly  a  return  upon  the'  advantage^  which  that  par- 
ticular plot  has  for  the  economic  purposes  of  the  community  as  compared 
with  other  plots  under  the  general  economic  conditions  then  prevailing. 

124 


This  second  part  of  the  income  from  real  estate  is  capitalized  into  what 
is  known  as  site  value  and  comprises  almost  the  sole  element  in  the 
value  of  city  larid.;^ 

The  supply  of  Sites  available  for  utilization  is  relatively  much  more 
determined  and  fixed  than  the  supply  of  capital  to  construct  the  improve- 
ments which  is  the  source  of  the  first  part  of  the  income  from  real  e'state. 
The  number  of  available  sites  will  certainly  not  be  decreased  if  the 
financial  return  is  diminished.f  The  supply  of  capital  to  construct 
buildings  or  other  such  improvements  upon  the  sites  is  quickly  affected 
in  case  a  diminution  in  the  return  below  that  which  can  be  obtained  if 
the  capital  is  invested  in  some  other  direction.  Buildings  wear  out  and 
must  be  constantly  repaired  and  replaced.  Nothing  is-more  simple  than 
to  refrain  from  re-investing  in  an  unprofitable  venture.  ,  To  secure  the 
houses  and  improvements  the  community  must,  in^  the  long  run,  pay 
those  who  are  in  a  position  to  supply  the  capital  needed  for  building 
houses  the  same  return  on  their  funds  as  they  could  obtain  elsewhere. 
In  the  case  of  the  owner  of  land  the  situation  is  different.  His  property 
consists  of  the  right  to  collect  periodically  for  tlie  use  of  his  site  a  sum 
which  represents  the  advantage  which  his- site  has  over  other  available 
sites.  Out  of  this  sum  he  must^pay  expenses,  chiefly  taxes.  •  The  fe- 
mainder,  cap^italized,  constitutes  the  selling  value  of  the  land.| 

The  dividing  line  between  the  t\^o  kinds  of  real-estate  income  is  not 
commonly  observed  in  the  accounts  of  real  estate  men  and  the  import- 
ance of  the  distribution' is  often  underrated".  It  is,  of  course,' true  that 
most  buildings  possess  considerable  permanency  an'd  that  their  selling 
value  once  built,  depends  upon  a  capitalization"  of  their  exp.ected  yields. 
But,  nevertheless,  the  petmanency  of  a  buildihg  and  the  nermanency  o^  a 
site  are  enough  different  to  justify  the"  use  of-tw'o  categories.  The  dis- 
tinction is  one  which  can  be  made  without  great  difficulty,  as  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  it  is  considered  of  prime  importance  in  determining 
values  for  assessment  purposes. 

In  consequence  of  the  differences  between  sites  and  improvements 
outHned  above,  important 'conclusions  are  drawn  in  regard  to  the  inci- 
dence of  taxes  upon  them.  It' is  generally  agreed  that  a  charge  which  is 
levied  upon  city  land  values  must  be  deducted  by  the  land  owner  from 
the  sum  he  already  receives  from  his  site.     He  is  already,  theoretically, 


*In  order  to  make  the  site  value  of  the  land yavailable  for  use,  the  expenditure  of  capital  is 
ofttimes  necessary,  as  when  lots  are  graded  or  fiq/d.  The  return  upon  a  graded  or  filled  lot  is 
determined  by  the  same  forces,  however,  as  would  be  the  case  if  the  grading  or  filling  had  been 
unnecessary.     The  capitalization  of  that  return,  therefore,  may  justly  be   termed  site  value. 

t  The  capital  expended  for  the  purpose  of  making  sites  available  when  the  improvements  are 
permanent,  such  as  grading,  usually  cannot  be  withdrawn  from  the  land.  The  normal  situation  is 
that  the  person  who  makes  such  an  improvement  expects  it  to  be  of  permanent  value  and  makes  the 
expenditure  as  soon  as  the  project  promises  a  return  merely  on  the  outlay  with  no  allowance  for 
replacements.  On  the  other  hand,  that  a  decreased  return  on  sites  to  the  individuals  owning  them 
would  act  as  a  deterrent  to  the  expenditure  of  capital  for  the  purpose  of  making  available  new  sites 
by   grading,   blasting, '  e'fc,   is  entirely   probable. 

J  This  is  true  only  in  case  the  present  conditions  are  expected  to  continue  indefinitely.  The 
capitalized  amount  is,  of  course,  the  sum  of  the  expected  annual  yields,  discounted  at  the  current 
rate   of  interest. 

125 


collecting  all  he  can  collect  from  the  tenant — the  equivalent  of  the  ad- 
vantages his  site  possesses  over  others  under  the  conditions  obtaining. 
The  heavier  tax  apportioned  according  to  land  values,  it  may  be  claimed, 
would  affect  these  conditions.  It  certainly  w^ill  not  decrease  the  number 
of  sites.  If  it  has  any  effect  in  this  direction  it  will  be  probably  that 
of  increasing  the  number,  through  foxcing  lands  into  use.  The  possible 
relief  afforded  other  subjects  of  taxation  by  virtue  of  the  adoption  of  this 
land  tax,  might  stimulate  to  some  degree  the  demand  for  sites  and  thus, 
indirectly,  increase  ground  rents.  There  is  no  way  of  measuring  the 
importance  of  this  element.  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  the  relief  afforded 
to  all  the  other  objects  which  might  otherwise  be  taxed  is  exactly  equal 
to  the  burden  put  upon  land  values  alone. 

^    It  follows  that  land  taxes  tend  to  he  borne  by  the  payer.     There  is 
no  shifting.     The  resting  place  is  with  the  owner. 

The  incidence  of  the  tax  on  buildings  is  different.  The  new  tax  is 
a  charge  connected  with  supplying  improvements  on  land  to  those  who 
desire  them.  The  personwho  supplies  the  improvements  is  the  capital- 
ist. He  can  place  his  capital  here  or  place  it  elsewhere.  To  place  it 
here  he  must  be  given  the  same  return  which  he  should  receive  else- 
where. Placing  his  capital  here  involves  the  payment  of  a  tax  charge 
which  can  usually  be  avoided  if  he  places  it  elsewhere.-  The  person, 
therefore,  who  wishes  the  improvement  on  land  here  must  meet  this 
charge  in  order  that  this  option  to  the  capitalist  may  be  as  attractive  as 
the  other.  ^Taxes  on  buildings  and  other  improvements  which  wear  out, 
tend,  therefore,  to  be  shifted  to  the  tenant. 

But,  it  may  be  said,  the  capitalist  has  already  committed  himself. 
He  has  built  houses  and  agreed  to  certain  terms  of  payment.  The  reply 
to  this  is  that  the  terms  of-  the  agreement  are  temporary  and  the  im- 
provefnents,  themselves  are  temporary.  In  the  case  of  agreements  that 
a  fixed  rental  be  paid  for  a  given  period,  the  tenant  will  escape  the  tax 
during  the  life  of  the  agreement.  Such  are  merely  instances  of  incidental 
friction. 

A  more  important  element  of  friction,  is  the  other  case  mentioned. 
The  capitalist  has  invested  his  funds  in  houses.  He  certainly  will  at- 
tempt to  raise  rents.  But  can  he  increase  them,  under  actual  conditions? 
The  answer  must  be  indefinite.  The  -^weapon  of  the  capitalist  is  the  re- 
fusal to  reinvest  in  the  same  direction.  Rarely  can  he  withdi-aw  his 
capital  when  in  th'e  form  of  a  building.  ^ 

If  the  members  of  the  community  cannot  or  will  not  pay  larger  sums 
for  ;-ent,  there  will  be  no  general  immediate  increase  in  rents  equal  in 
amount  to  the  added  tax.  Some  landlords  will  get  higher  rents.  Per- 
haps all  will  get  somewhat  higher  ones.  The  man  who  pays  $40  for  a 
four  room  apartment,  may  refuse  to  pay  $50  for  the  same  accommoda- 
tions. He  may  move  to  a  three  room  apartment  and  continue  to  pay 
$40.  Perhaps  some  other  individual  v^ho  before  rented  a  five  room 
apartment  will  now  occupy  the  four  rooms.     But  in  this  movement  into 

126 


smaller  apartments  there  would  be  a  decrease  in  the  demand  for  the 
larger  ones  which  would  result  in  a  reaction.  Owners  of  such  apart- 
ments might  reason  that  part  of  a  loaf  were  better  than  none  and  rent 
their  rooms  at  a  price  which  would  not  bring  a  fair  return  on  their 
investment.  This  could  not  be  a  permanent  situation,  however,  for  the 
weapon  of  the  landlord  presently  becomes  effective.  Under  those  cir- 
cumstances he  will  not  reinvest  his  money  in  the  same  direction. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  the  answer  to  this. question  depends 
upon  what  is  known  as  the  "elasticity  of  demand"  for  accommodations, 
vis.j  the  variation  in  the  demand  in  response  to  the  changes  in  price. 
In  a  city  where  a  large  proportion  of  the  accommodations  are  rented, 
this  elasticity  might  be  expected  to  be  greater  than  where  the  houses  are 
owned  by  the  occupants.  People  would  more  readily  move  when  the 
rents  were  increased  or  decreased.  This  results  in  throwing  a  larger 
share  of  the  burden  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  landlord.  Suppose  a  case 
where,  because  of  an  increase  in  t-lie  tax  on  buildings,,  the  landlords  at- 
tempt to  increase  the  rent.  In  a  cityof^nants  this  question  presents 
itself:  Shall  a  smaller  apartment  be  taken  or  shall  a  larger  part  of  the 
income  be  spent  for  house  room?  The  tenant  considers  this  question 
without  reference  to  the  interests  of  the  landlord.  His  answer  will  not 
be  influenced  by  the  fact  that  to  take  the  smaller  apartment  may  leave 
the  larger  one  vacant  with  a  resulting  loss.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
city  of  home-owners,  the  occupier  is  also  the  landlord.  The  increased 
tax  presents  to  him  a  different  problem.  If  he  is  not  to  pay  a  larger 
amount  of  his  income  for  hiring  accommodations  he  must  negotiate  a 
trade  or  sale.  His  interest  as  a  landlord  may  affect  his  action  as  a 
tenant.  It  would  seem  that  in  the  city  of  owners  many  more  individuals 
would  decide  to  pay  more  for  their  living  accommodations  than  in  the 
city 'of  tenants.  That  is,  the  variation  in  price  would  result  in  less 
change  in  demand.  In  the  city  of  tenants,  there  would  be  more  elas- 
ticity. A  similar  situation  develops  in  the  case  of  a  decrease  in  the  tax 
on  buildings.  The  renter  in  the  city  of  tenants  would  be  relatively  quick 
to  move  into  a  larger  apartment.  The  owner  of  a  home  would  take 
action  more  slowly.  He  might  add  a  room  to  his  home,  sell  it  or  trade 
it  for  another,  but  this  would  probably  be  done  much  less  often  than 
the  corresponding  action  in  the  city  of  tenants. 

It  is  perhaps  sufficiently  evident  that  a  decrease  in  the  tax  on  build- 
ings will  tend  to  be  pagsed  along  to  the  tenants  and  that  an  increase 
will  have  the  same  tendency.  That  is,  whereas  the  tax~on  land  tended 
to  remain  where  placed  and  be  borne  by  the  payer,  the  tax  on  buildings 
tends  to  be  shifted  and  be  borne  by  the  tenant  in  the  form  of  a  pa"rt  of 
the  rental  charge.  There  are  various  disturbing  elements  in  the  situa- 
tion which  obstruct  the  operation  of  these  principles.  One  of  the  most, 
important  of  these  is  the  investments  in  buildings  already  erected.  The 
more  elastic  the  demand  for  building  accommodations  in  a  given  city, 
the  more  disadvantageous  to  the  owners  of  real  estate  is  a  change  in 

127 


the  tax  on  buildings  likely  to  be.  In  a  city  where  the  percentage  of 
tenants  is  large,  the  elasticity  of  this  demand  will  be  relatively  large. 
But  in  spite  of  the  elements  of  friction  in  the  situation,  the  general  prin- 
ciple still  holds  that  a  tax  on  land  is  ordinarily  borne  by  the  <^wnen  and 
a  1;^x^on  improvements  by  the^tenarjt. 

B.     SIGNIFICANCE  FOR  REAL  ESTATE  OWNERS 

Before  proceeding  further  it  may  be  well  to  present  such  statistics 
as  are  available  concerning  the  relative  importance  of  the  classes  whose 
interests  are  to  be  discu3sed.  Both  the  tenement  house  department  and 
the  tax  department  gather  statistics  which  are  of  interest  in  this  con- 
nection. The  data  from  the  report  of  the  latter  is  more  comprehensive, 
including  in  its  classification  all  the  buildings  in  the  city.  A  summary 
from  the  1914  report  is  presented  herewith : 

Classification  of  Buildings  in  the  Boroughs  of  the  City  of  New  York 

Man-  The  Rich- 

hattan  Bronx         Brooklyn         Queens  mond  Total 


Class  1: 

25,212 
'  2,681 
39,421 

'  2,155 
15,380/ 

13,549 
8,154     , 
.    9,617 

•70 

3,773 

62,080 
49,505 
45,956 

209 
14,630 

35,663 
13,336 
4,876 

231 
f 

8,419 

14,219" 
-       1,519 
634 

82 
3,666 

150  723 

Class  2: 

Class  3: 

Tenements  without  elevators .... 

Class  4: 

Hotels  and  elevator  apartment 

100,504 
2  747 

Class  5: 

Miscellaneous  buildings'. 

45,868 

Total 

84,849 

35,163 

172,380 

62,525 

20,120 

375,037 

The  information  given  in  the  above  table-is  well  supplemented  by 
the  following  data  from  the  records  of  the  tenement  house  department : 

Apartments  and  Apartment  Buildings  in  the  BoiouGHS  of  the  City 
of  New  York  (a) 


Buildings       Apartments 


Manhattan 40,905  532,509 

Bronx 9,873  122,243 

Brooklyn 46,669  259,521 

Queens 5,256  25,375 

Richmond 411  1,661 


Total 103,114  941,309 

(a)  Data  for  June  30,  1915. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  sum  of  classes  three  and  four  of  the  first 
table  is  approximately  equal  to  the  total  number  of  apartment  build- 

128 


ings  as  given  in  second  table*.  Many  houses  as  well  as  mapy  apartments 
accommodate  more  than  one  family,  but  no  information  is  available  as 
to  the  comparative  extent  of  this  condition.  Practically  all  of  the  apart- 
ments a're,  of  course,  rented,  while  a  large  number  of  the  houses  are 
occupied  by  the  owners.  Here  again  exact  information  is  lacking.  An 
inspection  of  the  figures,  incomplete  as  they  are,  shows  very  clearly, 
however,  that  the  class  of  persons  who  own  the  premises  which  they 
occupy  is  very  small  indeed  as  compared  with  those  who  rent.  The  total 
number  of  single-family  houses  is  150,723  and  of  two-family  houses 
75,195.  Multiplying  the  latter  figure  by  two  and  adding  it  to  the  former, 
301,113  is  obtained.  Assuming  that  every  house  or  part  of  a  house  is 
owned  by  the  occupier,  which  is  of  course  not  true,  the  figures  indicate 
that  still  over  three-fourths  of  the  families  of  the  city  live  in  apartments. 
In  Manhattan,  by  this  test,  less  than  six  per  cent,  of  the  famiHes  live  in 
their  own  houses. 

(1).     Owners  who   Occupy   their  own  Property 

The  case  of  the  owners  of  real  estate  who  occupy  their  own  prop- 
erty will  first  be  discussed.  Although  statistics  indicate  that  the  number 
in  this  class  is  relatively  small,  particularly  in  Manhattan,  it  is  never- 
theless a  class  of  considerable  importance  and  one  which  from  a  social 
point  of  view  it  seems  desirable  to  encourage.  What  does  the  foregoing 
analysis  mean  for  the  home-owner?  The  answer  cannot  be  given  in 
a  word,  for  the  effects  vary  in  the  different  sections  of  the  city.  Some 
of  the  finest  residence  parcels  in  Manhattan  would  receive  decreases 
in  taxes,  but  the  owner  of  the  average  single-family  house  would  be 
called  upon  to  pay  a  larger  amount  under  the  plan.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  home-owners  in  the  outlying  boroughs  would  very  generally  receive 
considerable  decreases.  An  explanation  which  may  be  made  of  this  is 
that  the  single  family  dwelling  is  an  improper  improvement  in  Manhat- 
tan ;  that  the  land  in  general  is  suited  to  a  more  intensive  use  and  that 
the  man  who  builds  a  single  family  dwelling  on  the  Island  must  be  pre- 
pared to  assume  the  responsibiHties  and  penalties  connected  with  using 
a  plot  for  a  lower  purpose  than  that  for  which  it  is  adapted.  But  a  num- 
ber of  things  may  be  said  in  reply  to  such  a  contention.  First,  it  is  a 
question  whether  a  policy  should  be  adopted  which  places  a  heavier  bur- 
den upon  those  who,  even  though  the  expense  for  land  is  greater,  still 
find  a  residence  in  Manhattan  desirable.  In  the  next  place,  in  many 
ctises  the  high  proportion  of  land  value  is  due  to  shifts  in  the  suitable 
use  to  which  the  land  may  be  put.  Many  sections  are  filled  with  old 
houses  which  it  would  be  foolish  to  replace  with  new  because  business 
buildings  and  apartments  are  creeping  in  and  reduce  the  attractiveness 


*  The  definition  of  "tenement"  followed  by  the  tenement  house  department  is  that  of  a 
structure  accommodating  three  families  or  more,  who  live  independently  of  one  another,  and  whose 
cooking  is  done  on  the  premises.     This,  of  course,  excludes  hotels. 

129 


of  the  sites  for  single-family  dwellings.  But,  it  may  be  said,  this  new 
use  is  a  higher  use  bringing  with  it  higher  land  values.  Although  the 
statement  may  be  true  in  general,  nevertheless  the  entire  areas  of  these 
districts  cannot  be  sold  at  any  one  time  for  this  new  use,  the  owners 
sometimes  finding  it  necessary  to  carry  the  plots  a  long  time,  and,  the 
change  and  its  consequent  increase  in  selling  value  may  have  been 
expected  and  paid  for  beforehand,  when  the  land  was  bought. 

But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  desirability  of  the  effects  there 
is  no  doubt  as  to  what  they  will  be  upon  the  magnitude  of  the  taxes 
payable  by  the  owners  of  the  single-family  dwellings  in  Manhattan. 
Their  net  burden  will  in  general  be  substantially  increased. 

Another  point  of  interest  developed  in  the  course  of  the  investiga- 
tion into  the  effects  upon  the  owners  of  residence  parcels  in  Manhattan. 
In  this  borough  it  was  very  generally  the  case  that,  while  the  bulk  of 
the  houses  would  be  charged  with  heavier  taxes,  there  would  be  within 
each  group  a  number  which  would  receive  reductions.  An  examination 
of  these  parcels  showed  that  in  practically  every  case  they  were  the 
more  expensive  parcels  of  the  sample.  That  is,  in  Manhattan,  the  adop- 
tion of  the  plan  would  mean  virtually  a  regressive  tax  among  the  home 
owners.  In  the  other  boroughs,  strangely  enough,  this  condition  either 
does  not  obtain  at  all  or  only  to  a  very  limited  extent. 

The  discussion  thus  far  has  dealt  with  the  net  taxes  payable.  Of 
more  significance  is  the  question  of  the  increases  and  decreases  upon 
the  two  elements  in  the  value  of  the  parcel — land  and  buildings.  The 
net  taxes  might  remain  exactly  the  same  and  the  adoption  of  the  plan 
still  have  grave  effects  upon  the  interests  of  the  owners  of  property. 
Thus  the  mere  fact  that  their  net  taxes  would  be  reduced  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  that  the  owners  of  residences  in  the  outlying  boroughs 
would  receive  a  net  benefit  through  the  adoption  of  the  plan.  The  plan 
proposes  to  take  the  tax  off  buildings  and  put  it  on  the  land.  If  the 
shifting  takes  place  in  the  manner  indicated  above*  the  owner  will  find 
that  his  house  will  not  sell  for  more  because  of  its  lowered  tax  while  his 
land  will  sell  for  less  because  of  its  increased  tax.  Whether  he  will 
benefit  in  the  end  depends  upon  the  relative  importance  of  his  gain  as 
a  tax-payer  and  his  loss  as  a  land-owner.  Of  course,  if  the  adoption  of 
the  plan  should  itself  raise  land  values,  his  loss  as  an  owner  of  land 
would  be  diminished.  The  owner  of  a  Manhattan  residence  would  lose 
in  both  directions,  both  as  a  tax-payer  and  as  a  land-owner. 

The  approximate  importance  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings  as  a 
depressing  influence  upon  land  values  may  be  judged  from  the  following 
figures.  The  table  shows  the  value  of  improved  real  estate  in  the  various 
boroughs,  the  present  taxes  chargeable  to  this  part  of  the  tax  base  and 
the  increased  burden  which  the  land  would  be  called  upon  to  carry  if  the 
half-rate  plan  were  adopted  all  at  once: 


=  Supra,  p.  124,  et  seq. 

130 


Levies  Upon  Improved  Land  in  the  Various  Boroughs  Under  the  Present 

System  and  Under  the  Proposed  Plans  to  Halve  the 

Rate  on  Buildings 

Assessed  Levy  Increase 

Value  . ■ .         , • > 

Boroughs                                 of  Rate  on 

Improved  Present              Improvements  Amount       Percentage 

Lands  Plan                     One-Half 

Manhattan $3,003,267,830  853,333,231  $65,982,098  $12,648,867  24 

Bronx 183,026,461  3,224,688  3,998,488  773,800  24 

Brooklyn 630,735,712  11,586,364  14,442,208  2,855,844  25 

Queens 141,265,565  2,537,963  3,143,300  605,337  24 

Richmond 26,515,184  501,240  624,634  123,394  25 

It  appears  that  every  ov^ner  of  an  improved  parcel  in  Manhattan, 
for  example,  must  face  the  prospect,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  half-rate 
plan,  of  a  diminution  in  the  value  of  his  plot  equal  to  the  capitalization 
of  a  tw^enty-four  per  cent,  increase  in  the  tax  on  his  plot.  However, 
this  percentage,  of  course,  may  be  lowered  somewhat  by  a  process  of 
discounting  during  the  five-year  period  over  which  the  change  wbuld 
be  spread  and  by  forces  increasing  land  values  which  may  be  set  in  mo- 
tion by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  itself.  Assuming  an  interest  rate  of 
five  per  cent.,  the  prospective  depreciation  in  the  value  of  the  improved 
lots  in  Manhattan  would  amount  to  $252,977,340,  approximately  eight 
and  one-half  per  cent.  Under  the  assumption  of  a  six  per  cent,  rate 
the  prospective  decrease  would  be  $210,813,607,  or  approximately  seven 
per  cent. 

It  is  seen,  then,  that  under  the  proposed  plans  owners  of  property 
which  they  themselves  occupy  would  in  most  of  the  boroughs  pay  lower 
net  taxes  than  at  present.  This,  however,  is  not  true  of  Manhattan. 
But  as  the  owners  of  land  these  individuals  have  cause  for  apprehension 
in  the  adoption  of  the  plan  which  threatens  a  depreciation  in  the  selling 
value  of  the  land.  If  they  attempted  to  sell  their  land  they  would 
probably  find  the  market  price  lower  by  a  considerable  amount  than  it 
otherwise  would  have  been.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  gain  in  lowered 
taxes  accrues  to  the  owners  in  their  capacity  as  users  of  the  property, 
rather  than  in  their  capacity  as  the  owners  of  the  property.  That  is,  as 
owners  of  property  they,  with  all  other  owners,  would  lose.  As  users 
of  property  they,  together  with  all  other  users  would  gain.  The  reduced 
tax  on  buildings  could  not  usually  be  expected  to  be  capitalized  and 
added  to  the  market  value  of  the  parcel.  Its  benefit  would  accrue  to 
the  user.  On  the  other  hand  the  heavier  tax  on  land  would  be  capitalized 
and  substracted  from  the  selling  value  of  the  land.  The  benefit  would 
accrue  to  the  public  treasury  and  the  injury  to  the  owner.  The  gain  or 
loss  of  the  individual  who  occupies  his  own  property  would,  therefore, 
depend  upon  whether  he  gained  more  in  reduced  net  taxes  than  he  would 
lose  through  reduced  selling  value  of  his  property.  Viewed  from  this 
standpoint  the  owner  of  the  single-family  dwelling  on  Manhattan  would 
be  particularly  hard  hit  by  the  adoption  of  the  plan  to  lower  the  rate  on 
buildings. 

131 


(2).     Oivners  who  Rent  their  Property 

The  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  plans  to  untax  buildings 
upon  the  owners  of  rented  property  may  be  quickly  disposed  of.  In  so 
far  as  their  interest  as  land  owners  is  concerned,  they  are  at  one  with 
the  class  of  owners  just  discussed,  who  occupy  their  own  property.  But 
the  owner  who  rents  would  have  finally  no  compensating  factor  in  the 
way  of  a  smaller  burden  of  taxation  on  his  building.  For,  if  the  analysis 
is  correct,  the  decreased  tax  on  the  buildings  will  not,  in  the  long  run, 
accrue  to  the  advantage  of  the  owner  but  rather  to  the  advantage  of 
the  tenant.  Friction  will  develop,  no  doubt,  in  transmitting  the  decrease 
in  building  taxes  to  the  tenant.  In  the  long  run,  however,  the  owner 
who  rents  his  property  may  compute  as  his  probable  loss  merely  the 
capitalization  of  his  increased  land  tax,  modified  by  several  factors. 
Among  these  are  the  amount  of  the  decrease  in  building  taxes  which 
he  can  hold  back  from  his  tenants  and  whatever  amount  his  larger  land 
tax  may  be  diminished  either  by  the  discounting  process  or  by  the  stimu- 
lation to  land  values  traceable  to  the  operation  of  the  plan  itself. 

Some  light  may  here  be  thrown  upon  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
degree  of  shrinkage  in  land  values  would  be  great  enough  to  endanger 
real  estate  as  security  for  mortgage  loans.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  table 
presented  above*  what  the  probable  decreases  in  land  values  from  this 
source  would  be.  It  would  seem  that  unless  the  adoption  of  the  plan 
would  so  shock  the  faith  of  the  community  in  the  desirability  of  real 
estate  investments  as  to  cause  a  real  estate  panic,  little  need  be  feared 
by  the  holders  of  mortgages  which  are  protected  by  a  margin  of  value 
which  is  at  all  conservative.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  figures 
are  based  upon  the  1914  assessments  and  tax  rates.  The  1915  rates  are 
considerably  higher  than  those  of  1914  and  this,  of  course,  increases  the 
prospective  depreciation  in  land  values. 

(3).     Oivners  of  Vacant  Land 

The  owners  of  vacant  land  would  be  in  the  worst  position  of  all  if 
the  plan  to  untax  buildings  were  adopted.  The  table  which  follows 
shows  the  value  of  the  vacant  lots  and  the  increases  in  the  burdens  which 
would  be  put  upon  their  owners  under  the  proposed  plan. 

Levies  Upon  Vacant  Lots  in  the  Various  Boroughs  Under  the  Present  System, 
AND  Under  the  Proposed  Plan  to  Halve  the  Rate  on  Buildings 


Boroughs 

Assessed 
Values 

Present 
System 

Levy 

Rate  on 

Improvements 

One-Half 

Increase 

Levy 

Amount       Percentage 

Manhattan 

$158,681,830 

$2,817,935 

83,486,255 

$068,320             24 

Bronx 

153,089,599 

2,697,240 

3,344,472 

647,232             24 

Brooklyn 

153,123,447 

2,812,816 

3,506,128 

693,312             25 

139,412,555 

2,504,672 

3,102,069 

597,397             24 

Richmond 

13,733,924 

2,596,247 

3,235,382 

639.135             24 

«3,245,396 

*  Supra,  p.  131. 


132 


It  is  seen  that  the  decrease  in  the  selHng  value  of  vacant  lands,  under 
the  assumption  of  a  five  per  cent,  interest  rate,  might  be  as  much  as 
$64,907,920.  If  the  tax  rate  be  increased,  as  it  has  been  in  1915,  this 
decrease  would  be  still  greater.  On  the  other  hand,  the  process  of  dis- 
counting and  any  increase  in  land  values  due  to  the  operation  of  the  plan 
would  be  available  for  reducing  the  burden. 


(C).     SIGNIFICANCE  FOR  RENTERS 

The  total  decrease  in  the  taxes  on  rented  buildings  might  be  sup- 
posed to  be  available  for  lower  rents  if  the  process  of  shifting  worked 
perfectly.  That  this 'amount  is  very  substantial  can  be  seen  by  referring 
back  to  the  table  of  tax  levies.*  Put  several  important  factors  must  be 
taken  into  account  at  this  point.  The  first  is  the  amount  of  friction 
which  must  be  expected  in  transferring  the  decrease  in  the  tax  on 
buildings  to  the  tenants.  It  will  be  accepted  as  true  that  in  general  the 
tenants  are  less  well  informed  and  less  fully  alive  to  their  interests  than 
the  landlords.  /tThey  would  not  be  conversant  with  the  details  of  the 
operation  of  the  new  plan  'and  would  have  no  exact  knowledge  of  the 
reduction  which  had  been  made  on  the  parcels  or  fractions  of  a  parcel 
they  occupied.  Moreover,  there  would  .b'e  the  usual  reluctance  to  change 
the  status  quo  and  'the  'difBculties  attendant  upon  a  change  involving 
odd  sums.  Finally,  the  weapon  of  the  tenant  in  forcing  the  landlord  to 
give  lower  rents,  'that  of  moving  to  some  other  man's  house,  is  not 
entirely'  in  his  own  hands.  If  .rents  w'ere  reduced  there  would  be  some 
who  'would  prefer  to  take  the  reduction  in  the  form  of  larger  and  better 
quarters.'  This  means  that  some  of  the  tenants  who  desired  to  force 
lower  tfernis  from, their  landlords  would  have  to  wait  for  new  capital  to 
enter  the  field.  While  the  new  buildings  were*  being  constructed  the 
landlords  could  continue  to  collect  ft  considerable  portion  at  least  of 
the  sum  which  thepreticalty  belongs  to  the  tenant.  This  friction  would 
be  a  force  which  would  operate  only  temporarily  but  it  would  doubtless 
operate  as  a  very  important  check  upon  the  immediate  benefits  to  the 
tenants  under  the  proposed  plan. 

The  second  factor  is  of  perhaps  even  greater  importance.  It  is 
urged  by  som^  that  building  takes  olace  ip  the  City  of  New  York Jn 
anticipation  oi  demand  an*  beforoAfull.  return  can  be  secured^n  the 
investment;  that  this  l)uITamg  ^Hn#,  indirectly,  to  the  lure  oT  the 
unearned  increment  because  own^^of  vacant  land,  in  order  to  preserve 
titles  to  increments,  are  willing  to  sacrifice  a  part  of  it  by  building  before 
suitable  rents  can  be  asked  for  the  building.  It  is  notorious  that  depre- 
ciation, funds  are  seldom  provided  for  the  buildings  in  New  York,,  de- 
pendence being  placed  upon 'the  .increase  in  land  values  to  counter- 
balance the  decrease  in  building  values  through  wear  and  tear.     The 


*Suprp,  p.  23. 

133 


question  then  arises :  Would  not  a  tax  which  increases  the  burden  of 
land  so  much  as  to  decrease  materially  its  selling  value,  operate  to  dis- 
courage early  building  and  the  dependence  upon  increasing  land  values 
to  cover  depreciation  charges?  Would  it  not  make  .higher  rents  neces- 
sary to  care  for  these  demands?  Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  operation  of 
the  plan  may  set  in  motion  forces  which  would  mean  an '  increa.se  in 
rents  and  this  increase  must  be  compared  with  the  decreases  in  the  tax 
oiTlDuildings  before  an  answer  can  be  given  as  to  the  exact  effect  on 
rents,  of  the  plan  to  untax  buildings. 


(D).     SIGNIFICANCE   FOR   PROSPECTIVE   REAL   ESTATE 
OWNERS 

The  prospective  real  estate  owner  may  expect  little  benefit  from 
the  proposed  plan.  It  is  true  that  any  building  he  might  erect  would 
be  taxed  at  a  smaller  rate  than  before  but  in  case  he  proposes  to  build 
for  his  own  use  this  benefit  could  be  secured  by  him  without  himself 
building,  for  it  is  a  benefit  which  ultimately  accrues  to  the  user  rather 
than  to  the  owner.  If  he  plans  to, build  in  order  to  rent,  the  decreased 
taxes  must  ultimately  be  passed  on  to  the  tenant.  It  is  true  also  that 
he  would  probably  be  able  to  buy  his  plot  at  a  lower  price,  but  after  he 
has  bought  it  he  will  have  to  part  with  this  supposed  advantage  through 
the  increased  annual  charges  to  which  he  will  be  liable  because  of  the 
higher  tax  rate.  The  adoption  of  the  plan,  therefore,  would  seem  to 
involve  making  the  proposition  to  the  prospective  buyer  apparently  more 
attractive  without  adding  anything  to  its  real  attractiveness  after  all. 


Except  in  a  few  directions  the  foregoing  analysis  does  not  lend 
itself  readily  to  brief  and  accurate  generalization.  The  adoption  of  the 
proposed  plan  to  untax  buildings  is  seen  to  promise  a  great  variety  of 
results.  In  almost  every  borough  there  are  conditions  present  which 
make  the  effects  very  different  from  those  in  every  other  borough.  In 
Manhattan,  the  best  developed,  and  Queens,  almost  the  worst  developed 
of  all  the  boroughs,  taxes  would  be  increased  by  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  plan.  In  Manhattan  it^a  the  ino^^dinately  high  value  of  the 
improved  land  and  in  Queens  th^^^t  number  of  vacant  lots  which  is 
responsible  for  the  situation,  ^i^  predominance  of  well-improved 
parcels,  mostly  single-family  dwellings,  would  win  for  Brooklyn  a  very 
large  decrease  in  taxes.  Houses  in  Manhattan  would  usually  pay  higher 
taxes  while  those  in  other  boroughs  would  pay  lower  ones.  In  Man- 
hattan the  more  expensive  parcels  in  the  samples  would  receive 
decreases ;  in  the  Bronx,  the  less  expensive  ones.  Tenements  in  one 
portion  of  Manhattan  would  pay  greater  taxes  while  those  in  other 
sections  would  pay  smaller. 


134 


Two  conclusions,  however,  stand  forth  very  prominently.  In  the 
first  place,  the  change  promises  ultimate  benefits  of  :consid€rable  im- 
portance to  all  tenants  and  to  many  of  the  home-owners  in  the  out-lying 
boroughs.  These  benefits,  how'ever,  may  be  very  slow  of  realization. 
Secondly,  the  owners  of  hmd  would  be  charged  with  the  cost  of  these 
benefits.  The  cost,  in  turn,  would  also  be  considerable.  Its  amount,  as 
well  as  the  modifying  factors  have  been  set  forth  in  some  detail. 

What  has  been  presented  determines  only  a  few  of  the  variables 
which  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  reaching  a  truly  scientific 
decision  as  to  the  desirability  of  the  plan.  Many  of  them,  unfortunately 
can  be  determined  only  by  actually  trying  the  experiment  under  the 
conditions  here  existing. 


135 


APPENDIX 

DETAILED    INFORMATION    CONCERNING  THE 

EFFECTS  OF  THE  PROPOSED  PLANS  TO  UNTAX 

BUILDINGS   UPON   THE  TAXES  PAYABLE 

BY   OWNERS     OF    PARCELS    IN    THE 

VARIOUS    SELECTED    SECTIONS 


I.    MANHATTAN 

SKY-SCRAPER   SECTION 

(The  district  consists  of  all  the  buildings  south  of  Chambers  Street,  ten  stories  high  or  more.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.34:61.66) 

BUILDINGS  TEN  STORIES'  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              , * ■ ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

15-21  Wall  St $175,000                $2,200,000  7:93 

8-16  Broad    St 1.110,000                  4,200,000  21:79 

11-23  Broad    St 675,000                  3,500,000  16:84 

64-68  Broad    St 170,000                    575,000  23:77 

16-22  William  St 275,000                     600.000  31:69 

26-28  William  St 175,000                    400,000  30:70 

45-49  William  St 125,000                    725.000  15:85 

7  Pine  St 60,000                     210,000  22:78 

25  Pine  St 75,000                    225,000  25:75 

14  Maiden  Lane 65,000                      130,000  33:67 

93-109  Broadway 825,000                  2.575.000  24:76 

176-178  Broadway 375,000                  1,200,000  24:76 

203  Broadway 190,000                     810,000  19:81 

65-69  Nassau  St 100,000                    460,000  18:82 

93-99  Nassau  St 275,000                    775,000  26:74 

3-9  Beekman  St 200.000                     750,000  21 :79 

119-123  Beekman  St 90.000                    230,000  28:72 


$4,960,000  $19,565,000 

Group  B:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              < * v  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

41-45  Broadway $625,000                  $750,000  45:55 

125-131  Broadway 225,000                      150,000  60:40 

34-40  Fletcher  St 70,000                       30,000  70:30 

182-184  Front  St 85,000                      65,000  57:43 

11-13  Cliff  St 125.000                      55,000  70:30 

61-65  Cliff  St 195.000                      80,000  71 :29 

69-71  Cliff  St 250.000                     150,000  63:37 

192-194  Greenwich  St 85,000                       85,000  50 :50 

165-167  William  St 75.000                     100.000  43:57 

88-90  Gold  St 225,000                     100,000  69:31 

34-40  Rose  St 250,000                     120,000  68:32 

$2,210,000  $1,685,000 


BUILDINGS  ELEVEN  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               < ' n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

45-49  Cedar  St $335,000                  $565,000  37:63 

80  Broadway 400,000                  2,200,000  15:85 

40-42  Wall  St 825,000                  1,875.000  31:69 

46  Pine  St 45.000                      150.000  23:77 

36-38  Park  Row 350,000                  1,150,000  23:77 

$1,955,000  $5,940,000 

138 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                              '                        ^  ~      7' 

Improvements  Land 

n-18  State  St                $375,000  $450,000 

13  17PearTsf WW 475,000  425,000 

N.  &  S.  E.  Cor.  State  and  Pearl  Sts 525,000  675,000 

1-9  William  St 450,000  420,000 

M  66  Wall  St                     275,000  425,000 

tt^fw^-^:::. 365000  235,000 

35-39  Maiden  Lane 245,000  325,000 

18-20  Frankfort  St 240,000  185,000 

$2,950,000  $3,140,000 


Ratio 

46:54 
53:47 
44:56 
52:48 
39:61 
61 :39 
43:57 
57:43 


BUILDINGS  TWELVE  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               '                         *  I      7^ 

Improvements  Land 

52-54  Maiden  Lane $225,000  $^75,000 

63MaidenLane mOOO  90,000 

1  Broadwav                  700,000  1,300,000 

10  12  Broadway              200,000  450.000 

2-  a  Broadway'.  1 1  i 800.000  2,050  000 

84  Broadway... 275,000  I'^JS'S^S 

174    Broadwav         60,000  365,000 

80    BroaS:.::..: mOOO  360,000 

198  Broadwav            100.000  325,000 

261-fM  Broadway 450,000  1,050,000 

30-32  Snrs".':: : : : :  210,000  520.000 

68-70  Nassau  St 65,000  ^25,000 

$3,800,000  $9,970,000 
Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  '  '      I       p 

Improvements  Land 

47  West  St                 $140,000  $85,000 

23-25  South  St::: 400,000  150,000 

78-80  Wall  St 200,000  300.000 

82-88  Wall  St                 260,000  340,000 

50-52  Pine  St 200,000  210,000 

95-97  Liberty  St :    .    165,000  235,000 

120  122  Liberty  St 265,000  179,900 

II7-139  L^berTv  St: ::::::: 940,000  625,000 

122-144  Greenwich  St 29.5,000  125.000 

276  Greenwich  St 65,000  60,000 

39-41  Cortlandt  St 275,000  300,000 

irj^n^'S'^ :::::::::::::::::::  3X0  mZ 

47-«a1den  "Lane: 200,000  300,000 

51-53  Maiden  Lane 250  000  280,000 

r^^lm^^^ir ::::::::::::     :o§§  iS 

?-23-T3f wiiii'am-st: ::::::::: 515,000  435,000 

236-242  William  St 300,000  150,000 

110-116  Nassau  St 400,000  450,000 

81-83  Fulton  St 250,000  180,000 

4nO  Penrl    St                                 360,000  VU.UUU 

9  15  Murray  St 360.000  350,000 

7i  73  Murray  St: : : : : : : ::::::::: 135.000  65,000 

.$6,850,000  $5,959,900 


Ratio 

38:62 
37:63 
35:65 
31:69 
28:72 
14:86 
14:86 
22:78 
24:76 
30:70 
23:77 
36:64 
28:72 
22:78 


Ratio 

62:38 
73:27 
40:60 
43:57 
49:51 
41:59 
60:40 
60:40 
70:.30 
52:48 
48:52 
43:57 
46:54 
40:60 
47:53 
40:60 
45:55 
54:46 
67:33 
47:53 
58:42 
80:20 
51:49 
74:26 


139 


BUILDINGS  THIRTEEN  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ^ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

o^'o^^^"^^ $225,000  $400,000  36:64 

27-29  Pine  St 225.000  550,000  29:71 

^H^.  ?',"^  ?^ 300,000  525,000  36:64 

^^  ,¥^^^"  ^^"^ 95,000  180,000  34:66 

10-14  Beekman  St 260,000  500,000  34-66 

53-65  Park  Row 450,000  1,500,000  23  -.11 

$1,555,000  $3,655,000 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ^ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

79-85  Wall  St $225,000  $350,000  39-61 

56-58  Pine  St 390,000  310,000  56:44 

441/' -46  Maiden  Lane 310.000  475,000  40-60 

20-24  Vesey  St 375,000  375,000  50:50 

253  Broadway 900,000  1,025,000  47:53 

$2,200,000  $2,535,000 


BUILDINGS  FOURTEEN  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , '• ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

44-48  Cedar  St $300,000  $500,000  38:62 

135-137  Broadway 350,000  1,250,000  22 :78 


$650,000  $1,750,000 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ( * n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

15-17  Beekman  St $235,000  $200,000  54:46 

Frankfort  St.  (N.  Y.  Press) 395,000  245,000  62 :38 

90-92  W.  Broadway 200,000  100,000  tl  .ZZ 

$830,000  $545,000 


BUILDINGS  FIFTEEN  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

28-30  Nassau  St $3,700,000  $6,300,000  2,1 -eZ 

35-39  Nas.sau  St 775,000  1,575,000  33:67 

24-26  Cortlandt  St 590,000  1,325,000  31 :69 

$5,065,000  $9,200,000 

140 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               '                         ■*■  ^ 

Improvements  Land 

82-9?  Beaver  St       $500,000  $400,000 

68-70  William  St 460,000  600.000 

216-218  William  St 390,000  110,000 

Q-17  Dey  St              800.000  875,000 

9-13  Maiden  Lane 340,000  435,000 

106-108  Fulton  St 245,000  205,000 

$2,735,000  $2,625,000 


Ratio 

56:44 
43:57 
78:22 
48:52 
44:56 
55:45 


BUILDINGS   SIXTEEN   STORIES  IN   HEIGHT 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would    Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 
Address  <■  *  ^ 

Improvements  Land 

24-^8  Broad  "^^t  $600,000  $1,250,000 

32-36  Broad  St: ::::.: 950.000        1,550.000 

32-34  Broadway 350,000  600.000 

160-164  Broadway 600,000  1-25,000 

39-42  Park  Row       400,000  1,100,000 

71-73  Nassau  St.: 420,000  680,000 

$3,320,000  $6,305,000 


Ratio 

22:68 
38:62 
37:63 
35:65 
27:73 
38.18:61.8 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               f                        '"'  '          ^ 

Improvements  Land 

5-11  Broadway $1,750,000  $1,500,000 

22-30  Broadway 1.550.000  l-700,000 

256-257  Broadway 375,000  550.000 

63-65  Beaver  St.    450.000  425,000 

14-22  Cortlandt  St 1,175.000  1'225,000 

98-105  William  St 960.000  940,000 

135-141  William  St 300.000  200,000 

57-61JohnSt 415,000  260,000 

$6,975,000  $6,800,000 


Ratio 

54:46 
48:52 
41:49 
52:48 
48:52 
51:49 
60-40 
62:38 


BUILDINGS  SEVENTEEN  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would   Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


Improvements 
126-128  Broadway $425,000 


Land 
$1,375,000 


Ratio 
24:76 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


Improvements  Land 

67-69  William  St $390,000  $425,000 

84-88  William  St 675,000  525,000 

$950,000 


$1,065,000 
141 


Ratio 


48:52 
56:44 


BUILDINGS  EIGHTEEN  STORIES'  IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would   Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

49-51  Broadway $950,000  Sl,900,000  33:67 

66-70  Broadway 1,400,000  2,650,000  35:65 

86  Broadway 150,000  650,000  19:81 

166-172  Broadway 850,000  1,975,000  30:70 

$3,350,000  $7,175,000 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , • * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

26-28  Beaver  St $250,000  $150,000  63:37 

28-30  Beaver  St 355.000  270,000  57:43 

59-61  Pearl  St 366,500  93,500  80:20 

$971,500  $513,500 

BUILDINGS  NINETEEN  STORIES. IN  HEIGHT 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would   Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ' n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

141-147  Broadway $1,100,000  $1,850,000  Z7  M 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ' ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

11-13  William  St $800,000  $875,000  48:52 

27  William  St 1,150,000  1,150,000  50:50 

154-162  Nassau  St 750,000  950,000  44:56 

$2,700,000  $2,975,000 


BUILDINGS   TWENTY   STORIES   IN   HEIGHT 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would   Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , -^ ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

72-74  Broadway $355,900  $1,125,000  2476 

27-33  Nassau  St 1,000,000  1,800,000  36:64 

$1,355,000  $2,925,000 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes   Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

46-52  Broad  St $1,150,000  $1,100,000  51:49 

50-54  William  St 640,000  810,000  44:56 

15-19  Maiden  Lane 600,000  735,000  45:55 

68-76  Maiden  Lane 550,000  500,000  52:48 

$2,940,000  $3,145,000 

142 


BUILDINGS  TWENTY-ONE  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

100-106  Broadway $700,000  $1,725,000  2971 

20  Broad  St 1,150,000  1,850,000        38.33:61.67 

$1,850,000  $3,575,000 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               , ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

36-42  Broadway .$2,200,000                $2,100,000  51 :49 

67-73   Broadway 1,600,000                 2,500,000  39-61 

111  Broadway 2,500,000                  4,000,000  38.4:61.6 

113-119  Broadway 2,200,000                  3,200,000  41:59 

92-94  Liberty  St 500,000                    700,000  41:59 

$9,000,000  $12,500,000 


BUILDINGS  TWENTY-TWO  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  > * s  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

5-11  Nassau  St .$1,100,000  $2,900,000  28:72 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Should  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  i ^ ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

87-93  West  St $1,750,000  $550,000  76:24 


BUILDINGS  TWENTY-THREE  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  i * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

58-60  Broadway $1,350,000  $1,650,000  45:55 

8  Rector  St 2,050,000  900.000  69:31 

2-6  Spruce  St 585,000  765,000  43:57 

$3,985,000  $3,315,000 


BUILDINGS  TWENTY-FIVE  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  i * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

218-222  Broadway $550,000  $950,000  Z7  -.6?, 

143 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes   Would  Be  Decreased. 
Assessed  Values 

Address  '- ^  ~^> 

Improvements  Land 

37-43  Wall  St  $1,025,000  $1,300,000 

43-49  Exchange  PI 1,150,000  750,000 

13-21  Park  Row 1,265,000  1,365,000 

$3,440,000  $3,415,000 

BUILDINGS  TWENTY-SIX  STORIES  IN   HEIGHT 
Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 
Address  '  *  ^ 

Improvements  Land 

60-62  Wall  St $1,175,000  $925,000 

80  Maiden  Lane 2,300,000  1,200,000 

$3,475,000  $2,125,000 

BUILDINGS  THIRTY  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 
Address  r  *  -      p 

Improvements  Land 

1  Nassau  St  $2,600,000  $3,200,000 

53-57' Liberty' St 950,000  1,000.000 

$3,550,000  $4,200,000 

BUILDINGS  THIRTY-TWO  STORIES   IN  HEIGHT 
Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  <■  ''  ~~    "^ 

Improvements  Land 

9  Battery  Place $1,725,000  $1,575,000 

27-31  Broadway 1,900,000  2.900,000 

57-61  Broadway 1,900.000  2,900.000 

$5,525,000  $7,375,000 

BUILDINGS  THIRTY-THREE  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 
Address                               r  ^  -^ 

Improvements  Land 

165-167  Broadway $3,700,000  $2,925,000 

BUILDINGS  FORTY  STORIES  IN  HEIGHT 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  ' *  ^ 

Improvements  Land 

149-163  Broadway $3,000,000  $4,000,000 

BUILDINGS   FIFTY-FOUR   STORIES   IN   HEIGHT 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  '- "  ^      7^ 

Improvements  Land 

227-237  Broadway $6,000,000  $2,800,000 

144 


Ratio 

44:56 
61:39 
48:52 


Ratio 


56:44 
66:34 


Ratio 


45:55 
49:51 


Ratio 

52:48 
40:60 
40:60 


Ratio 
59:41 


Ratio 
43:57 


Ratio 
68:32 


UPPER  EAST  SIDE  TENEMENT  SECTION 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  88.34:61.66) 


Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


1968  Second  Ave. 
1990  Second  Ave. 


Improvements  Land 

$8,500  $14,000 

6,000  10,000 


$14,500 


$24,000 


Ratio 


38:62 
37:63 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              ' * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1933-35  First  Ave $29,500  $22,500  57:43 

1937-39  First  Ave 21,500  16,000  57:43 

1941_43  First  Ave 21,500  16,000  57:43 

1945-47  First  Ave 21,500  16,000  57:43 

1949-51  First  Ave 29,500  22,500  57:43 

1953  First  Ave 52,500  37,500  63:37 

1957-9  First  Ave 27,000  18,000  59:41 

1961  First  Ave 27,000  18,000  59:41 

1963  First  Ave 35,000  25,000  58:42 

1969  First  Ave 37,000  33,000  59:41 

1922  Second  Ave 42,000  26,500                61.3:38.7 

1924-6  Second  Ave 33,500  17,500  66:34 

1928-30  Second  Ave 33,500  17,500  66:34 

1932-4  Second  Ave 33,500  17,500  66:34 

1936-8  Second  Ave 42,000  26,500               61.3:38.7 

1946  Second  Ave 13.500  16,500  45:55 

1948  Second  Ave 8.000  10,000  44:56 

1950  Second  Ave 8.000  10,000  44:56 

1952  Second  Ave 10.000  10.000  50:50 

1954  Second  Ave 10,000  10,000  50:50 

1956  Second  Ave 8,000  10,000  44:56 

1958  Second  Ave 8,000  10,000  44:56 

1960  Second  Ave 13,500  16,500  45:55 

1970  Second  Ave 7.500  8,500  47:53 

1972  Second  Ave 7,500  8.500  47:53 

1974  Second  Ave 7,500  8,500  47:53 

1976  Second  Ave 10,000  10,000  50:50 

1978  Second  Ave 10,000  10.000  50:50 

1980  Second  Ave 10,000  10.000  50:50 

1982  Second  Ave 13.500  16,500  45:55 

1984  Second  Ave 10,500  14.000  40:60 

1986  Second  Ave 7,500  8,500  47:53 

1988  Second  Ave 7,500  8,500  47:53 

1992  Second  Ave 10,000  10,000  50:50 

1994  Second  Ave 10,000  10,000  50:50 

1996  Second  Ave 10,000  10.000  50:50 

1998  Second  Ave 13,500  16,500  45:55 

303  East  99th  St 26,000  7,500  78:22 

305-7  East  99th  St 26.000  7,500  78:22 

309  Fast  99th  St 26.000  7,500  78:22 

311-13  East  99th  bt 26,000  7.500  78:22 

305  East  100th  St 27,500  9.500  64:36 

306-8  East  100th  St 33.000  12,000  73:27 

307-9  East  100th  St 27,500  9,500  64:36 

310-12  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73:27 

311  East  100th  St 27,500  9,500  64:.-^6 

313-15  East  100th  St 27,500  9,500  64:36 

314-16  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73:27 

317  East  100th  St 27,500  9,500  64:36 


145 


UPPER   EAST   SIDE   TENEMENT   SECTION— Continued 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

318-20  East  100th  St $33,000  $12,000  73:27 

319  East  100th  St 14,000  6,000  70:30 

321  East  100th  St 14,000  6,000  70:30 

322-24  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73:27 

323  East  100th  St 14,000  6,000  70:30 

325  East  100th  St 14,000  6,000  70:30 

326-28  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73:27 

327  East  100th  St 21,000  9,000  70:30 

329  East  100th  St 21,000  9,000  70-30 

330-32  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73:27 

331  East  100th  St 21,000  9,000  70-30 

333  East  100th  St 21,000  9,000  70-30 

334-36  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73-27 

338-340  East  100th  St 33,000  12,000  73-27 

302  East  101st  St 27.000  11,000  71  -29 

303  East  101st  St 9,000  7,000  5644 

304  East  101st  St 15.000  7,000  68-32 

305  East  101st  St 8.000  7,000  53-47 

306  East  101st  St 15,000  7,000  68-32 

307  East  101st  St 8.000  7,000  53-47 

308  East  101st  St 15,000  7,000  68-32 

309  East  101st  St 8.000  7,000  53-47 

310-12  East  101st  St 15,000  7,000  68-32 

311  East  101st  St 8,000  7,000  53:47 

313  East  101st  St 8.000  7,000  53:47 

314-16  East  101st  St 25,500  9,500  74-26 

315  East  101st  St ^.  16.000  7,000  70-30 

317  East  101st  St 20,000  8,000  71  -29 

318-20  East  101st  St 25,500  9,500  74:26 

319  East  101st  St 19,500  8,000  71-29 

321  East  101st  St 19.500  8,000  71  -29 

322-24  East  101st  St 25,500  9,500  74-26 

323  East  101st  St 19,500  8,000  71  -29 

325  East  101st  St  19,500  8,000  71 :29 

326-28  East  101st  St 25.500  9,500  74-26 

327  East  101st  St -19.500  8.000  71  -29 

329  East  101st  St 1Q,500  8,000  71  -29 

330  East  101st  St 25.500  9,500  7426 

331-33  East  101st  St 27.500  9,500  74-26 

332  East  101st  St 25..500  9,500  74-26 

334  East  101st  St 25.500  9,500  74-26 

335-37  East  101st  St 27,500  9,500  74-26 

3.^6  East  101st  St 25,500  9,500  74-26 

338-40  East  101st  St 25.500  9,500  74-26 

339-41   East  101st  St 27,500  9,500  74-26 

343-45  East  101st  St 27,500  9,500  74-26 

302  East  102nd  St 11,000  7,000  61-39 

303  East  102nd  St 10,000  6,000  62-38 

304  East  102nd  St 11,000  7,000  61-39 

305  East  102nd  St 26.000  10.500  71-29 

306  East  102nd  St 13,000  7,000  65-35 

307-9  East  102nd  St 26,000  10.500  71-29 

308  East  102nd  St 11,000  7,000  61-39 

310  East  102nd  St 11,000  7,000  61-39 

311  East  102nd  St 26,000  10,500  71-29 

313-15  East  102nd  St 26.000  10,500  71  -29 

317  East  102nd  St 26.000  10.500  71-29 

319  East  102nd  St 26.000  10,500  7129 

320  East  102nd  St 11,500  7,000  62-38 

322  East  102nd  St 10.500  7.000  60-40 

324  East  102nd  St 10.500  7.000  60:40 

326-28  East  102nd  St 25.500  10.500  71-29 

330  East  102nd  St .^  25.500  10,500  71:29 

146 


UPPER  EAST  SIDE  TENEMENT  SECTION— Concluded 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

332-34  East  102nd  St $25,500                 $10,500  71:29 

336  East  102nd  St 25,500                   10,500  71:29 

304  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

306-08  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

310  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

312-14  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

316-18  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

320  East  103rd  St 26,000                    10,500  71:29 

$2,521,000  $1,315,500 


147 


RIVINGTON    STREET    SECTION 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.34  :  61.66) 

Group  A:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  . ■ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

54  Rivington  Street $14,000  $31,000  31 :69 

56  Rivington  Street 2,000  16,000  11 :89 

62  Rivington  Street 4,000  16,000  20:80 

64  Rivington  Street 9,000  16,000  36:64 

70  Rivington  Street 8,000  30,000  21 :79 

72  Rivmgton  Street 4,000  16,000  20:80 

74  Rivmgton  Street 4,000  16,000  20:80 

76  Rivmgton  Street 5,000  16,000  24:76 

88  Rivington  Street 9,000  16,000  31 :69 

90  Rivington  Street 9,000  20,000  31 :69 

92  Rivington  Street 10,000  19,000  34:66 

98  Rivington  Street 13,000  26,000  33:67 

112  Rivmgton  Street 7,000  18,000  28:72 

126  Rivington  Street 3,000  16,000  16:84 

130-38  Rivington  Street 30,000  58,000  34:66 

134  Rivington  Street 4,000  18,000  18:82 

144  Rivington  Street 12,000  18,000  31 :69 

167  Stanton  Street 2,000  11,000  15:85 

97  Stanton  Street 6,000  18,000  25:75 

99  Stanton  Street 5,000  17,000  23:77 

113  Stanton  Street 7,000  20,000  26:74 

123  Stanton  Street 9,000  19,000  32:68 

125  Stanton  Street 9,000  19,000  32:68 

127  Stanton  Street 7,000  19,000  27:73 

129-31  Stanton  Street 10,000  20,000  33:67 

143  Stanton  Street 1,500  14,000  10:90 

145  Stanton  Street 1,000  12,000  8:92 

196  Eldridge  Street 10,000  20,000  33:67 

198  Eldridge  Street 10,000  20,000  33:67 

202  Eldridge  Street 12,000  20,000  37:63 

208  Eldridge  Street 11,500  20,500  34:66 

210  Elddrige  Street 4,000  23,000  38:62 

218  Eldridge  Street 9,500  20,500  32:68 

220  Eldridge  Street 9,500'  20,500  32:68 

152  Allen  Street 10,000  19,000  34:66 

154  Allen  vStreet 10,000  19,000  34:66 

165  Allen  Street 3,000  17,000  15:85 

167  Allen  Street 6,000  17,000  26:74 

170  Allen  vStreet 10,000  19,000  34:66 

172  Allen  Street 10,000  19,000  34.66 

173  Allen  Street 3,000  17,000  15:85 

175  Allen  Street 1,000  14,000  7:93 

177  Allen  Street 8,000  21,000  28:72 

146  Orchard  Street 7,000  22,500  24:76 

148  Orchard  Street 6,000  22,000  21:79 

150  Orchard  Street 6,000  22,000  21:79 

152  Orchard  Street 6,000  22,000  21:79 

154  Orchard  Street 6,000  22,000  21:79 

156  Orchard  Street 6,500  22,000  23:77 

158  Orchard  Street 6,500  22,500  22:78 

160  Orchard  Street 6,500  21,500  23:77 

162  Orchard  Street 6,500  22,000  23:77 

168-70  Orchard  Street 25,000  45,000  36:64 

135  Ludlow  Street 500                         3,500  12:88 

136  Ludlow  Street 5,000  19,000  21:79 

137  Ludlow  Street 12,000  23,000  34:66 

144  Ludlow  Street 12,000  23,000  34:66 

145  Ludlow  Street 4,000  15,000  21:79 

146  Ludlow  Street 12,000  23,000  34:66 

147  Ludlow  Street 4,000  15,000  21:79 

148 


RIVINGTON  STREET   SECTION— Continued 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased. 

Assessed  Values 

Address  f * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

148  Ludlow  St "   $10,000  $23,000  30:70 

149  Ludlow  St 15,000  23,000  18:82 

150  Ludlow  St 10,000  23,000  30:70 

151  Ludlow  St 15,000  23,000  18:82 

152  Ludlow  St 7,000  23,000  23:77 

154  Ludlow  St 7,000  23,000  23:77 

155  Ludlow  St 14,000  23,000  38:62 

156  Ludlow  St 7,000  23,000  23:77 

157  Ludlow  St 14,000  23,000  38:62 

158  Ludlow  St 7,000  23.000  23:77 

159  Ludlow  St 5,000  12,000  29:71 

160  Ludlow  St 20,000  35,000  36:64 

139-41  Ludlow  St 5,000  46,000  10:90 

132  Essex  St 30,000  60,000  33:67 

136  Essex  St 10,000  25,000  29:71 

137  Essex  St 8,500  22,500  27:73 

138  Essex  St 10,000  25,000  29:71 

139  Essex  St 13,500  22,500  37:63 

140  Essex  St 10,000  25,000  29:71 

141  Essex  St 13,500  22,500  37:63 

142  Essex  St 9,000  25,000  26:74 

143  Essex  St 13,500  22,500  37:63 

144  Essex  St 9,000  25,000  26:74 

145  Essex  St 13,500  22,500  36:64 

146  Essex  St 9,500  25,000  28:72 

147  Essex  St 12,500  22,500  36:64 

148  Essex  St 11,500  25,000  32:68 

150  Essex  St 7,000  25,000  22:78 

152  Essex  St 5,000  25,000  17:83 

153  Essex  St 8,000  18,000  31:69 

155   Essex  St 7,000  18,000  28:72 

157  Essex  St 10,000  27,000  27:73 

135  Norfolk  St 13,500  24,000  36:64 

136  Norfolk  St 10,000  24.000  29:71 

137  Norfolk  St 13,500  24,000  36:64 

138  Norfolk  St 10,000  24,000  29:71 

139  Norfolk  St 13,500  24,000  36:64 

140  Norfolk  St 7,000  24,000  23:77 

141  Norfolk  St 13,500  23,500  36:64 

142  Norfolk  St 10,500  23,500  31:69 

143  Norfolk  St 13.500  23,500  36:64 

144  Norfolk  St 7,500  23,500  24:76 

145  Norfolk  St 7,500  23,500  24:76 

146  Norfolk  St 7.500  23.500  24:76 

148  Norfolk  St 8.500  23,500  27:73 

150  Norfolk  St 8,500  23,500  27:73 

157  Norfolk  St 5,500  21,500  20:80 

159  Norfolk  St 6,500  15,500  30:70 

125  Suffolk  St 8,000  24,000  25:75 

127  Suffolk  St 8.000  24.000  25:75 

129  Suffolk  St 8.000  24.000  25:75 

131  Suffolk  St 9.000  24,000  27:73 

133  Suffolk  St 10,000  24,000  29:71 

135  Suffolk  St 10,000  24,000  29:71 


$1,020,000  $2,729,500 


149 


RIVINGTON   STREET  SECTION— Conduded 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               i * v  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

66-68  Rivington  St $39,000  $43,000  48:52 

86  Rivington  St 21,000  32,000  40:60 

94-96  Rivington  St 31,000  42,000  42:58 

100  Rivington  St 40,000  50,000  44:56 

132  Rivington  St 31,000  42,000  42:58 

136-38  Rivington  St 32,000  40,000  44:56 

146  Rivington  St 28,000  42,000  40:60 

79  Stanton  St 13,000  19,000  41:59 

81  Stanton  St 13,000  19,000  41 :59 

83  Stanton  St 13,000  19,000  41:59 

85  Stanton  St 13,000  19,000  41 :59 

87  Stanton  St 20,000  32,000           38.46:61.54 

101-3  Stanton  St 20,000  33,000  48:62 

121  Stanton  St 20,000  28,500  41 :59 

147  Stanton  St 17,000  23,000  42.5:57.5 

200  Eldridge  St 13,000  20,000  40:60 

204-6  Eldridge  St 29,000  41,000  41 :59 

212  Eldridge  St 7,000  11,000  38.9:61.1 

214-16  Eldridge  St 24,000  26,000  48:52 

151-3  Allen  St 27,000  27,000  50:50 

156  Allen  St 13,000  16.000  45:55 

158  Allen  St 13,000  16,000  45:55 

157-9  Allen  St 30,000  28,000  52:48 

160  Allen  St 13,000  16,000  45:55 

161  Allen  St 20,000  17,000  54:46 

162  Allen  St 13,000  16,000  45:55 

163  Allen  St 13,000  17,000  43:57 

164  Allen  St 13,000  16,000  45:55 

166  Allen  St 13,000  16,000  45:55 

169  Allen  St 14,000  17,000  45:55 

171  Allen  St 14,000  17,000  45:55 

141-43  Orchard  St 40,000  50,000  44:56 

145  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

147  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

149  Orchard  St 13,500  21.500  38.6:61.4 

151  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

153  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

155  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

157  Orchard  St 13,500  21,500  38.6:61.4 

1.S9  Orchard  St 17,000  26,000  40:60 

161  Orchard  St 17,000  26,000  40:60 

163  Orchard  St 14,500  22,500  39:61 

164  Orchard  St 17,000  22,000  44:56 

165  Orchard  St 14,500  22,500  39:61 

166  Orchard  St 17,000  22,000  44:56 

138-40  Orchard  St 30,000  45,000  40:60 

142  Orchard  St 15,000  23,000  40:60 

143  Orchard  St 24,000  33,000  42:58 

147  Orchard  St 16.500  23.500  43:57 

149  Orchard  St 16,500  23,500  43:57 

151  Orchard  St 16,500  23,500  43:57 

152  Orchard  St 15,500  23,500  40:60 

153  Orchard  St 16,500  23,500  43:57 

154  Orchard  St 15,500  23.500  40:60 

156-58  Orchard  St 28,000  43,000  39:61 

123  Suffolk  St 13,500  20,000  40:60 

137  Suffolk  St 17,000  24,000  41:59 

139  Suffolk  St 16,500  24.000  41 :59 

147-49  Suffolk  St 31,000  45,000  41:59 

$1,123,500  $1,540,000 


160 


HOUSTON  STREET  SECTION 

(Standard  Cotnpositc  Ratio:  38.34:61.66)  ] 

Group  A  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              > ' <  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

4  First  Ave $8,000  $20,000  29:71 

6  First  Ave 8,000  20,000  29:71 

12  First  Ave 10,000  31,000  24:76 

14  First  Ave 12,000  26,000  32:68 

16  First  Ave 7,000  20,000  26:74 

22  First  Ave 4,000  20,000  17:83 

32  First  Ave 16,000  27,000  37:63 

34  First  Ave 8,000  17,000  32:68 

36  First  Ave 9,000  23,000  28:72 

38  First  Ave 10,000  22.000  31:69 

40  First  Ave 5,000  14,000  26:74 

42  First  Ave 8,000  19,000  30:70 

44  First  Ave 8,000  19,000  30:70 

46  First  Ave 12,000  30.000  29:71 

1-3  Avenue  A 15,000  30,000  33:67 

5  Avenue  A 15,000  35,000  31:69 

9  Avenue  A 7,500  14,500  27:73 

13  Avenue  A 5.500  13.500  22:78 

15  Avenue  A 4,000  14,000  29:71 

17  Avenue  A 4,000  11,000  34:66 

23  Avenue  A 4.000  11,000  30:70 

29  Avenue  A 8,000  21,000  20:80 

33  Avenue  A 9.000  21,000  25:75 

35  Avenue  A 9,000  21,000  25:75 

37  Avenue  A 7,000  21,000  30:70 

39  Avenue  A 7.000  21,000  30:70 

41  Avenue  A 15.000  20.000  28:72 

194  East  Houston  St 5.000  10.000  33:67 

208  East  Houston  St 10,000  17.000  37:63 

222  East  Houston  St 5,000  10.000  33:67 

224  East  Houston  St 5.000  9.500  34:66 

226  East  Houston  St 4.800  9.200  34:66 

228  East  Houston  St 5,000  9.000  35:64 

78  East  1st  St 7,000  17.000  29:71 

81  East  1st  St 1.000  7,000  13:87 

83  East  1st  St 1,000  7.000  13:87 

89  East  1st  St 3.000  6.000  33:67 

91  East  1st  St 3,000  6,000  33:67 

981/  East  1st  St 3,000  15,000  17:83 

100' East  1st  St 6.000  15.000  29:71 

102  East  1st  St 6,000  15,000  29:71 

104  East  1st  St 5,000  12,000  29:71 

106  East  1st  St 5,000  12.000  29:71 

118  Ea,st  1st  St 1.000  15,000  6:94 

105  East  2nd  St 5,000  13,000  28:72 

107  East  2nd  St 10,000  18,000  36:64 

109  East  2nd  St 10,000  18.000  36:64 

111  East  2nd  St 8.000  18,000  25:75 

113  East  2nd  St 10,000  18,000  36:64 

115  East  2nd  St 16,000  13.000  3268 

104  East  3rd  St 5,000  9,000  36:64 

106  East  3rd  St 6,000  13,000  32:68 

108  East  3rd  St 6.000  16,000  2476 

110  East  3rd  St 5.000  16,000  24:76 

112  East  3rd  St 5,000  16,000  24:76 

114  Fast  3rd  St 5,000  16,000  24:76 

116  East  3rd  St ^ 5,000  16,000  24:76 

118  East  3rd  St 5,000  16,000  24:76 

120  East  3rd  St 5,000  16,000  24:76 

122  East  3rd  St 5.000  16,000  24:76 


151 


HOUSTON   STREET  SECTION— Conimued 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              i * n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

124  East  3rd  St $5,000                 $16,000  24:76 

126  East  3rd  St 5,000                    16,000  24:76 

128  East  3rd  St 5,000                    16,000  24:76 

130  East  3rd  St 5,000                    18,000  22:78 

132  East  3rd  St 5,000                    18,000  22:78 

134  East  3rd  St 5,000                    18,000  22:78 

136  East  3rd  St 5,000                    18,000  22:78 

138  East  3rd  St 5,000                    18,000  22:78 

140  East  3rd  St 2,000                    12,000  14:86 


$463,803  $1,151,700 


Group  B:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              , * ■ n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

8-10  First  Ave $37,000  $53,000  41:59 

18  First  Ave 30,000  40,000  43:57 

26  First  Ave 37,000  44,000  46:54 

180-84  E.  Houston  St 45,000  50,000  47:53 

196  E.  Houston  St 5,000  8,000           38.46:61.54 

198  E.  Houston  St 12,000  19,000  41 :59 

200  E.  Houston  St 12,000  18,500  40:60 

202  E.  Houston  St 12,000  18,000  40:60 

206  E.  Houston  St 11,500  17,500  40:60 

214-18  E.  Houston  St 2,500  32,000  44:56 

220  E.  Houston  St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

80-2  E.  First  St 33,000  32,000  51:49 

90  E.  First  St 32,000  33,000  49:51 

94  E.  First  St 32,000  33,000  49:51 

98  E.  First  St 32,000  33,000  49:51 

110-12  E.  First  St 33,000  29,000  53:47 

114-16  E.  First  St 31,000  29.000  52:48 

103  East  2nd  St 11,000  16.000  41:59 

104-6  East  2nd  St 35,000  50.000  41:59 

110  East  2nd  St ,  35,000  36,000  49:51 

112  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

114  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

116  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

117-19  East  2nd  St 30,000  30,000  50:50 

120  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

122  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

124  East  2d  St 25,000  21.000  54:46 

126  East  2nd  St 25,000  21,000  54:46 

128  East  2nd  St 25.000  21,000  54:46 

132  East  2nd  St 31,500  31.500  50:50 

136  East  2nd  St 31.000  31,000  50:50 


$780,500  $866,500 


152 


None. 


ELEA^ATOR  APARTMENT  SECTION 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.34:61.66) 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 


Ratio 


Address                               r  "^ 

Improvements  Land 

4185  Broadway $185,000  $95,000  66:34 

4197  Broadway 200,000  105,000  66:34 

4221  Broadway 175,000  100,000  64:36 

4233-39  Broadway 149,000  96,000  71 .29 

4241  Broadway 170,000  100,000  63:37 

717  West  177th  St 119,000  41,000  74:26 

701  West  178th  St 150,000  80,000  65:35 

718  West  178th  St 114.000  41,000  74:26 

825  West  178th  St 118,500  31,500  79:21 

830  West  179th  St 118,500  31,500  79:21 

725  West  180th  St 194.000  39,000  71:29 

804  West  180th  St 125.000  45,000  74:26 

720  West  181st  St 125,000  60,000  68:32 

728  West  181st  St 135,000  60,000  69:31 

736  West  181st  St 142,000  63,000  69:31 

S.W.C.  181st  St.,  bet.  Pinehurst  &  Northern 

Ave.  (Comfort  Realty  Co.) 155,000  60,000  70:30 

S.E.C.  181st  St.,  bet.  Pinehurst  &  Northern 

Ave.  (Ft.  View  Const.  Co.) 143.000  52,000  73:27 

S.E.C.  Ft.  Washington  Av.  &  180th  St 135,000  65,000  67:33 

454  Ft.  Washinjxtton  Ave 305,000  135,000  69:31 

N.E.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  180th  St. . . .  175.000  80,000  69:31 

N.W.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  177th  St...  153.000  67,000  70:30 

S.W.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  178th  St. . . .  153,000  67.000  70:30 

S.W.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  179th  St. . . .  130,000  60,000  68:32 

N.W.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  179th  St. . . .  143,000  65,000  61 :31 

S.W.C.  Ft.  Washington  Ave.  &  180th  St. . . .  141,000  64,000  68:32 

447  Ft.  Washington  Ave 1 34,000  66.000  67  .SS 

—  Ft.  Washington  Ave 91,000  49,000  65:35 

—  Ft.  Washington  Ave 135,000  72,000  65:35 

N.W.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  177th  St 147,000  48,000  75 :25 

S.W.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  178th  St 147.000  48,000  75 :25 

SE.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  179th  St 122,000  43.000  74:26 

N  E.G.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  179th  St 125.000  45,000  74:26 

S.E.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  181st  St 163.000  67,000  71 :29 

S.E.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  180th  St 124,000  36,000  75:25 

N.E.C.  Pinehurst  Ave.  &  179th  St 124,000  36,000  75 :25 

$5,165,000  $2,213,000 


153 


None. 


WALK-UP  APARTMENT  SECTION 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.34:61.66) 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Address                              > ^ v  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

—  Audubon  Ave $48,000  $27,000  64:36 

185  Audubon  Ave 53,500  33,500  62:38 

189  Audubon  Ave 21,000  14,000  60:40 

199-209  Audubon  Ave 43,000  33,000  56 :44 

247-51  Audubon  Ave 128,000  62,000  67 :33 

255  Audubon  Ave 17,500  21,500  56:44 

503-5  West  174th  St 29,000  14,000  67:33 

509  West  174th  St 43,000  21,000  67:33 

557-61  West  174th  St 60,000  32,000  65 :35 

503-5  West  175th  St 28,000  17,000  62:38 

507-9  West  175th  St 28,000  17,000  62:38 

511-13  West  175th  St 28,000  17,000  62:38 

515-17  West  175th  St 28,000  17,000  62:38 

516-18  West  175th  St 25,000  14,000  64:36 

520  West  175th  St 25,000  14,000  64:36 

521  West  175th  St 31,000  19,000  62:38 

502  West  176th  St 27,000  14,000  66:34 

503  West  176th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

505-7  West  176th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

506  West  176th  St 27,000  14,000  66:34 

509-11  West  176th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

510  West  176th  St 27,000  14,000  66:34 

513-15  West  176th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

514  West  176th  St 27,000  14,000  66:34 

574-80  West  176th  St 84,000  42,000  67:33 

502-4  West  177th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

503-17  West  177th  St 106,000  54,000  66:34 

506-8  West  177th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

510-12  West  177th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

514-16  West  177th  St 26,500  13,500  67:33 

575-87  West  177th  St 86,000  56,000  63:37 

510-12  West  178th  St 25.000  19,000  57:43 

534-36  West  178th  St 38,000  30,000  56:44 

586-90  West  178th  St 48.000  32,000  60 :40 

592-96  West  178th  St 48.000  32,000  60:40 

2300  Amsterdam  Ave 36.000  31,000  55:45 

2304-6  Amsterdam  Ave 29,000  24,000  55 :45 

2364  Amsterdam  Ave 23,000  20,000  53:47 

2356  Amsterdam  Ave 23.000  20,000  53:47 

1340-2  St.  Nicholas  Ave 29,000  31,000  48:52 

1344-6  St.  Nicholas  Ave 24.000  24,000  50:50 

1348-50  St.  Nicholas  Ave 24,000  24,000  50:50 

1352-4  St.  Nicholas  Ave 24,000  24,000  50:.S0 

1356  St.  Nicholas  Ave 29,000  34,000  46:54 


$1,632,000  $1,034,000 


154 


Address 


64 
71 
73 

77 
95 
96 
97 


RIVERSIDE   DRIVE  SECTION 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.34:61.66) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Owner  or  Occupant  -  -' 

Improvements         Land 

C-M.Schwa^ S650000        Sl,050.000 

|^-^5^v.;::::::::::: i6,ooo       2.000 

iSlSSin:::::::::::::::::::::      ;oo       25,000 

Mi;„r^^"^ :::     IS 

T"=  S.;h^ 12-000        20,000 

fe.'^HStzlinger:^  12.000  ^0.000 

$769,000        $1,250,000 


Ratio 

38.2:61.8 
37.5:62.5 
37.2:62.8 
37.5:62.5 
37.5:62.5 
36.9:63.1 
36.9:63.1 
37.5:62.5 
37.5:62.5 


Address 

1 
3 
4 
23 
24 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
45 
51 
61 
62 
63 
72 
74 
75 
76 
78 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Owner  or  Occupant                     -  7'  ,  ' 

Improvements  Land 

T      Q    TT    PrPr.tk^                                              $53,000  $57,000 

r¥S"- ■■•■■••■■■■■ »  tr 

AngirM.Booth ■  ^.  ^^^ 

J.  Harvey  and  Chas.  S.  Neel 36,000  42.000 

^"^Fivnn"""" :  i:™  29:^ 

?PWh,fP :      ..  34,000  30,000 

|I,^^S„.::::::::::;:::::: 24«o^  -ooo 

H   BlSord ::'.:  23<K)0  22,000 

|aSpS^n.::;:::::::;::::; -.ooo  20,000 

M   n   Rrili '. '. .  33,000  37,000 

|a?dn:Hu.pws::::;:::: 25,00^  i«» 

Sa^„|/p.v.:;:::;: :;::;::: :;::::  22:000  20000 

li.^^uS'et  a,::::::: ::::;;::;: j^oo  18,000 

Nora  E.  p.  Bergman If.™  21.0U0 

ro^Se?" ::;;  iS  llm> 

?„i-^rn5rn.;.::;:::::.::::: 23.000  27.000 

Sophie  M   Edwards 17.000  27  000 

Julie  W.  Leach ok  nnn  q-^t  nOfl 

Frieda  Armond 25,000  33,000 

John  B.  Manning 19-000  ^l.^UU 

Isabel  de  F.  CoUron 20,000  23,U0U 

Harrison  B.  Moore 20,000  23,000 

Delos  McCurdy,  Trustee 21,000  22,000 

Hester  J.  Morton 20,000  2    000 

S^S?5?^iedier;::::;::::::::::::  22:000  33,000 

Sarah  E.  Knapp 21,000  22,000 

guz^-M.^¥d?ram.v.::::::::-.:.::::...  19.500  25,000 

$1,061,000  $1,202,500 


Ratio 

48:52 

44:56 

47:53 

48:52 

48:52 

46.2:53.8 

53.3:46.7 

52.5:47.5 

53.1:46.9 

54.5:45.5 

53.2:46.8 

51.1:48.9 

55.5:44.5 

42.3:57.7 

47.1:52.9 

51:49 

50:50 

52.4:47.6 

42.9:57.1 

50:50 

44:56 

44:56 

42:58 

39:61 

40:60 

46:54 

39:61 

46:54 

43:57 

48:52 

46:54 

46:54 

49:51 

49:51 

44:56 

40:60 

49:51 

42:58 

46:54 

44:56 

43:57 

40:60 


155 


FIFTH  AVENUE  SECTION 


(Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.34:61.66) 


Address 


800 

801 

802 

803 

804 

805-7 

810 

811 

812 

813 

814 

815 

816 

817 

820 

824 

825 

826 

827 

830 

833 

834 

835 

836 

837 

842-3 

844 

845 

850-2 

855 

858 
864 
871 
874 
875 
876 


881 
883 
900 

9i2 
914 

922 
926 
927 

931 
932 
933 
934 


964 
967 


972 


Group  A:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Owner  or  Occupant  '— ♦ ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

Louisa  M.  Gerry |200,000  $1,200,000  14:86 

Helen  C.  Bostwick 65,000  335,000  16:84 

A.  C.  Bostwick 25,000  175,000  12:88 

A.  C.  Bostwick 25,000  175,000  12:88 

George  R.  Fearing 55,000  200,000  22:78 

W.E.Roosevelt 20,000  220,000           8:92 

E.  L.  Winthrop 60,000  720,000            8:92 

Geo.  Amsinck 70,000  295,000  19:81 

W.  F.  Loring 20,000  180,000  14:86 

Clara  L.  McMurtry 38,000  202,000  16:84 

Hugh  J.  Chisholm 85,000  160,000  35:65 

Thos.  Rutter 35,000  175,000  17:83 

G.  G.  Lake 35,000  175,000  17:83 

A.L.Gerry 70,000  155,000  31:69 

Pen  Alpha  Realty  Co 90,000  300,000  23:77 

J.  B.  Haggin 40,000  800,000           5. 95 

Cath.  L.  Kernochan 65,000  195,000  25:75 

I.  V.  Brokaw 50,000  170,000  23:77 

Josephine  Brooks 65,000  170,000  28;72 

E.  J.  Berwind 115,000  335,000  26:74 

Jas.  B.  Haggin 180,000  350,000  34:66 

Wm.  Guggenheim 170,000  280,000  37. 8:62. 2 

Three  States  Realty  Co 170,000  280,000  37. 8:62. 2 

J.W.Herbert 90,000  200,000  31:69 

Isadore  Wormser,  Jr 20,000  175,000  10:90 

Sophie  A.  Sherman 120,000  455,000  21:79 

John  J.  Astor 600,000  1,300,000  32:68 

J.  J.  Astor 100,000  175,000  36:64 

Elizabeth  B.  Schley 110,000  475,000  18:82 

H.  O.  Havemeyer  Est 200,000  775,000  21:79 

Cecelia  Borg 55,000  320,000  15:85 

Geo.  Gould .' 250,000  525,000  32:68 

Thos.  F.  Ryan 325,000  1,200,000  21:79 

5th  Av.  &  68th  St.  Co 75,000  610,000  11:89 

H.  P.  Whitney 425,000  875,000  33:67 

Wm.  MitcheU 130,000  395,000  25:75 

Daniel  G.  Reed 85,000  165,000  34:66 

Mary  B.  Harrison 95,000  205,000  32:68 

Ogden  Mills 115,000  585,000  16:84 

E.  H.  Harriman 200,000  675,000  23:77 

A.  Lewisohn 65,000  485,000  12:88 

John  Sloan 80,000  320,000  20:80 

Mrs.  N.  E.  Bayliss 60,000  325,000  16:84 

Mary  I.  Burden 100,000  400,000  20:80 

John  N.  Sterling 70,000  175,000  29:71 

Samuel  Thorne 110,000  300,000  27:73 

Geo.  W.  Quintard 65,000  310,000  17:83 

J.  W.  Simpson 85,000  180,000  32:68 

A.  D.  Pell 200,000  550,000  27:73 

S.  B.  Chapin 45,000  240,000  16:84 

J.  D.  Lynig 20,000  160,000  14:86 

M.  L.  Schiff 40,000  210,000  16:84 

L.  V.  Karkness 95,000  180,000  35:65 

A.  W.  Hoyt 110,000  295,000  27:73 

Five  Boroughs  Realty  Co 165,000  310,000  35:65 

Martha  M.  Wysong 135,000  265,000  34:66 

Sarah  H.  Dietrich 75,000  150,000  33:67 

Dr.  Geo.  H.  Butler 62,000  153,000  29:71 

Theresa  Schiff 150,000  310,000  33:67 

Wm.  V.  Lawrence 75,000  245,000  23:77 

Payne  Whitney 230,000  455,000  34:66 


156 


Address 


984 
986 
987 
988 
989 
990 
993 
1006 
1007 
1008 
1009 
1020 
1028 
1031 
1032 
1033 

1641 
1043 
1044 
1045 
1046 
1048 
1053 
1054 
1056 


1071 
1080 


1116 


FIFTH   AVENUE  SECTION— Continued 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Owner  or  Occupant " >  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

Isaac  D.  Fletcher $125,000  $340,000  27:73 

Isaac  V.  Brokaw 100,000  400,000  20:80 

Isaac  V.  Brokaw 90,000  155,000  37:63 

Wm.  J.  Curtis 60,000  150,000  29:71 

W.  Lewisohn 80,000  150,000  35:65 

Pauline  Murray 45,000  150,000  23:77 

Nicholas  F.  Brady 70,000  230,000  23:77 

Frank  W.  Woolworth 125,000  235,000  35:65 

Edinee  Reisinger 175,000  325,000  35:65 

Katherine  F.  Gilshenen 35,000  135,000  21 :79 

Kate  F.  Timmerman 60,000  115,000  34:66 

Sallie  J.  A.  Hall 95,000  155,000  38:62 

James  B.  Duke 140,000  225,000  30:70 

William  Salomon 115,000  410,000  22:78 

Harriet  V.  S.  Thorn 115,000  200,000  37:63 

James  H.  Hammersley 50,000  300,000  14:86 

Annie  Leary 50,000  100,000  33:67 

George  Smith 150,000  100,000  33:67 

James  B.  Clews 65,000  160,000  29:71 

Lloyd  Warren 30,000  190,000  14:86 

David  Mayer 10,000  90,000  10:90 

Matthew  H.  Beers 35,000  90,000  28:72 

R.  Hopkins 25,000  90,000  22:78 

Michael  Dreicer 50,000  90,000  36:64 

Wm.  S.  Miller 125,000  275,000  31:69 

George  Leary 40,000  80,000  33:67 

W.  H.  Erhort 60,000  170,000  26:74 

Keokee  M.  Perin 28,000  82,000  25:75 

James  Speyer 140,000  460,000  23:77 

Henry  Phipps 300,000  800,000  27:73 

Philip  Livingston 105,000  170,000  38. 2:61. 

Percival  Farquliar 105,000  175,000  37:63 

Andrew  Carnegie 475,000  1,875,000  20:80 

Jacob  Ruppert 35,000  370,000           9:91 

$10,088,000      $31,417,000 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 


Address 

854 
856 
923 
924 
925 


954 
956 
962 

973 
985 
991 
992 
1014 
1015 
1025 
1026 
1027 
1033 


Owner  or  Occupant  ' ^— 

Improvements 

Geo.  F.  Mason $180,000 

E.  H.  Gary 285,000 

EHza  Guggenheimer 110,000 

Georgia  W.  Warren 125,000 

M.  W.  Terrell 85,000 

Caroline  H.  Bertron 120,000 

E.  S.  Harkness 220,000 

S.  W.  Bridgeham 155,000 

J.  H.  Harding 180,000 

W.  A.  Clark  Realty  Co 3,000,000 

J.  B.  Duke 600,000 

Georgia  D.  Heredia 120,000 

Isaac  V.  Brokaw 100,000 

Zelma  K.  Clark 95,000 

Rocklege  Cons.  Co 95,000 

J.  F.  A.  Clarke 95,000 

George  J.  Gould 95,000 

Lloyd  S.  Bryce 150,000 

Mary  J.  Kingsland 178,000 

Harriet  S.  Clark 185,000 

Helen  C.  Robbins 70,000 


Ratio 


Land 

$245,000 

42:58 

375,000 

43:57 

170,000 

39.3:60.7 

200,000 

38.5:61.5 

115,000 

39.5:60.5 

180,000 

40:60 

320,000 

41:59 

185,000 

46:54 

200,000 

47:53 

1,000,000 

75:25 

850,000 

41:59 

180,000 

40:60 

150,000 

40:60 

145,000 

40:60 

144,000 

40:60 

130,000 

42:58 

130,000 

42:58 

200,000 

43:57 

182,000 

49:51 

200,000 

48:52 

100,000 

41:59 

157 


FIFTH   AVENUE   SECTION— Concluded 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values  Ratio 


Address 


Improvements  Land 

1068  Hamilton  M.  Weed $145,000  $105,000  58:42 

1069  Emily  A.  V.  B.  Reynolds 165,000  185,000  47:53 

Louise  M.  Pollack 115,000  180,000  39:61 

1072  W.  W.  Fuller 115,000  120,000  49:51 

1073  John  H.  Hanan 115,000  120,000  49:51 

....  Benj.  N.  Duke 220,000  245,000  47:53 

1081  Eliza  W.  Van  Ingen 100,000  110,000  48:52 

1082  Eleonore  Phillips 75,000  100,000  43:57 

1083  Archer  M.  Huntington 105,000  120,000  47:53 

I.  Townsend  Burden 200,000  245,000  45:55 

1109  Frieda  S.  Warburg 275,000  215,000  56:44 


$7,873,000      $15,019,000 


168 


I 


SECTION  OF  SIDE  STREETS  EAST  OF  FIFTH  AVENUE 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.84:61.66) 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

13  East  60th  St $30,000  $85,000  26:74 

15  East  60th  St 30,000  85,000  26:74 

17  East  60th  St 30,000  85,000  2674 

19  East  60th  St 30,000  85,000  26:74 

21  East  60th  St 10,000  62,000  13:87 

23  East  60th  St 8,000  52,000  13:87 

25  East  60th  St 31,000  160,000  16:84 

5  East  61st  St 45,000  205,000  13:87 

7  East  61st  St 8,000  96,000  8:92 

8  East  61st  St 45,000  110,000  29:71 

9  East  61st  St 8,000  95,000  8:92 

15  East  61st  St 9,000  93,000  8:92 

17  East  61st  St 53,000  92,000  37:63 

19  East  61st  St 8.000  33,000  19:81 

20  East  61st  St 8,000  92,000  8:92 

21  East  61st  St 7,000  20,000  26:74 

22  East  61st  St 8,000  75,000  10:90 

23  East  61st  St 3,000  22,000  12:88 

24  East  61st  St 6,000  60,000  9:91 

25  East  61st  St 10,000  50,000  17-83 

26  East  61st  St 8,000  70,000  10:90 

28  East  61st  St 12,000  90.000  12:88 

—  East  61st  St 15.000  210,000  7:93 

4  East  62nd  St 70,000  175,000  29:71 

5  East  62nd  St 10,000  98.000  9:91 

7  East  62nd  St 9,000  97,000  8:92 

9  East  62nd  St 8,000  96,000  8:92 

12  East  62nd  St 11,000  95,000  10:90 

14  East  62nd  St 10,000  94,000  9:91 

15  East  62nd  St 35,000  70,000  33:67 

16  East  62nd  St 10,000  80,000  11:89 

17  East  62nd  St 9,000  69.000  11:89 

18  East  62nd  St 22,000  78.000  22:78 

19  East  62nd  St 8,000  68,000  13:87 

20  East  62nd  St 7,000  54,000  11:89 

21  East  62nd  St 7.000  60.000  10:90 

22  East  62nd  St 9,000  73.000  11:89 

24  East  62nd  St 35.000  58.000  38:62 

26  East  62nd  St 7,000  58,000  11:89 

28  East  62nd  St 45,000  110.000  29:71 

2  East  63rd  St 2,000  63.000  2:98 

4  East  63rd  St 2,000  62,000  3:97 

6  East  63rd  St 2,000  61.000  3:97 

8  East  63rd  St 27.000  96,000  22:78 

10  East  63rd  St 8.000  94.000  8:92 

12  East  63rd  St 15.000  92,000  14:86 

14  East  63rd  St 20.000  90,000  18:82 

16  East  63rd  St 7.000  64,000  10:90 

18  East  63rd  St 7,000  64,000  10:90 

20  East  63rd  St 7.000  64.000  10:90 

28  East  63rd  St 27.000  64.000  30:70 

1  East  63rd  St 12.000  100,000  11:89 

3  East  63rd  St 10.000  98.000  9:91 

7  East  63rd  St 14.000  94.000  13:87 

9  East  63rd  St 11.000  92,000  11:89 

11  East  63rd  St 10.000  90.000  10:90 

13  East  63rd  St 9.000  71,000  11:89 

21  East  63rd  St 36.000  74.000  33:67 

8  Fast  641  h  St 5.000  76.000  6:94 

9  East  64th  St 37.000  173.000  18:82 

JO  East  64th  St 5,000  75,000  6:94 

159 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS  EAST   OF  FIFTH  AVENVE— Continued 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               , ^ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

;2  East  64th  St $5,000  $74,000  6:94 

J4  East  64th  St 5,000  73,000  6:94 

5  East  64th  St 8,000  106,000  7:93 

16  East  64th  St 33,000  72,000  31:69 

!o  J?""'^  ?1^u  i* 21,000  67,000  24:76 

18  East  64th  St 50,000  90,000  36:64 

19  East  64th  St 5,000  71,000  7:93 

20  East  64th  St 20,000  88,000  19:81 

21Kast64thSt 5,000  60,000  8:92 

22  East  64th  St 39,000  86,000  31:69 

2^g^st64thSt 20,000  53,000  27:73 

24  East  64th  St 7,000  71,000  9:91 

25  East  64th  St 5,000  53,000  7:93 

26  East  64th  St 9,000  71,000  11:89 

27  East  64th  St 25.000  95,000  21:79 

20  East  64th  St 25,000  125,000  17:83 

2  East  65th  St 10,000  85,000  11:89 

4  East  65th  St 13,000  99,000  12:88 

5  East  65th  St 42,000  98,000  30:70 

9  East  65th  St 10,000  96,000  9:91 

11  East  65 th  St 13,000  107,000  12:88 

13  East  65th  St 15.000  80,000  11:89 

J4  East  65th  St 15,000  75,000  17:83 

J5  East  65th  St .30,000  110,000  21:79 

16  East  65th  St 9,000  68,000  12:88 

J 7  East  65th  St 13,000  90,000  13:87 

}8  East  65th  St 7.000  62,000  10:90 

19  East  65th  St 13.000  90,000  13:87 

20  East  65th  St 45,000  90,000  33:67 

21  East  65th  St 10.000  70,000  12:88 

23  East  65th  St 9.000  60,000  13:87 

25  East  65th  St 10.000  100,000  9:91 

1:3  East  66th  St 25,000             '      135.000  16:84 

2  East  66th  St 8,000  80.000  9:91 

4  East  66th  St 8.000  79,000  991 

6  East  66th  St 18,000  78,000  19:81 

8  East  66th  St 18.000  77,000  19:81 

0  East  66th  St 8,000  76,000  10:90 

1  East  66th  St 37,000  95,000  28:72 

12  East  66th  St 16.000  96,000  14:86 

13  East  66th  St 11.000  80.000  12:88 

14  East  66th  St 15.000  95,000  14:86 

15  East  66th  St 11.000  67,000  14:86 

16  East  66th  St 14,000  94,000  13:87 

17  East  66th  St 14,000  70,000  17:83 

18  East  66th  St 10,000  93,000  10:90 

19  East  66th  St 16,000  70,000  19:81 

20  East  66th  St 15,000  70,000  15:85 

22  East  66th  St 8,000  70,000  10:90 

4  East  67th  St 20.000  110,000  15:85 

6  East  67th  St 15,000  80,000  16:84 

7  East  67th  St 57,000  103.000  36-64 

8  East  67th  St 57.000  108.000  35;65 

9  East  67th  St 38,000  102,000  27:73 

11  Ea.st  67th  St 10,000  90,000  10-90 

12  East  67th  St 12,000  108,000  10:90 

3  East  67th  St 10,000  90,000  10:90 

14  East  67th  St 10,000  90,000  10:90 

17  East  67th  St 15,000  100.000  13:87 

18  East  67th  St 15.000  100.000  13:87 

19  East  67th  St 20,000  80,000  2080 

20  East  67th  St 17,000  108.000  14-84 

21  East  67th  St 12,000  80.000  13:87 

160 


SECTION   OF  SIDE   STREETS  EAST   OF  FIFTH  AVENUE— Continued 

Group  A:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              ' * >  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

22  East  67th  St $45,000  ^95,000  32:68 

23  East  67th  St 12,000  70,000  15:85 

24  East  67th  St 70,000  220,000  20:80 

(Madison  Ave.) 20,000  160,000  11:89 

5  East  68th  St 125,000  225,000  36:64 

6  East  68th  St 10,000  85,000  11:91 

8  East  68th  St 61,000  99,000  38.1:61.9 

10  East  68th  St 17,000  98,000  15:85 

12  East  68th  St 7,000  75,000  9:91 

14  East  68th  St 8,000  77,000  9:91 

22  East  68th  St 6,000  61,000  9:91 

24  East  68th  St 6,000  61,000  9:91 

26  East  68th  St 6,000  61,000  9:91 

28  East  68th  St 8,000  70,000  10:90 

(Madison  Ave.) 25,000  110.000  19:81 

3  East  69th  St 66,000  104,000  38.82:61.18 

4  East  69th  St 40,000  150,000  21:79 

5  East  69th  St 35,000  135,000  21:79 

6  East  69th  St.. 30,000  100,000  23:77 

7  East  69th  St 27,000  118.000  19:81 

8  East  69th  St 125,000  250,000  33:67 

9  East  69th  St 32,000  108,000  23:77 

11  East  69th  St 28,000  122,000  19:81 

12  East  69th  St 40,000  160,000  20:80 

13  East  69th  St 55,000  125,000  31:69 

14  East  69th  St 22,000  108,000  17:83 

15  East  69th  St 35,000  100,000  26:74 

16  East  69th  St 35,000  120,000  21:79 

17  East  69th  St 30,000  170,000  15:85 

18  East  69th  St 13,000  67,000  37:63 

4  East  70th  St 70,000  140,000  33:67 

6  East  70th  St 35,000  90,000  28:72 

8  East  70th  St 10,000  65,000  13:87 

10  East  70th  St 7,000  80,000  8:92 

12  East  70th  St 15,000  105,000  12:88 

14  East  70th  St 30,000  65,000  32:88 

16  East  70th  St 20,000  65,000  24:76 

18  East  70th  St 10,000  75,000  12:88 

20  East  70th  St 10,000  75,000  12:88 

22-24  East  70th  St 10,000  50,000  17:83 

(Madison  Ave.) 25,000  155,000  14:86 

3-5  East  71st  St 125,000  325.000  28:72 

9  East  71st  St 85,000  360,000  19:81 

11  East  71st  St 55,000  130,000  30:70 

13  East  71st  St 25,000  80,000  24:76 

15  East  71st  St 20,000  100,000  17:83 

17  East  71st  St 15,000  75,000  17:83 

19  East  71st  St 20,000  95,000  17:83 

21  East  71st  St 50,000  120,000  29:71 

4  East  72nd  St 50,000  105,000  32:68 

6  East  72nd  St 50,000  100,000  33:67 

8  East  72nd  St 35,000  85,000  29:71 

9  East  72nd  St 120,000  230,000  34:66 

10  East  72nd  St 40,000  85,000  32:68 

12  East  72nd  St 35,000  85,000  29:71 

14  East  72nd  St 60,000  110,000  35:65 

15  East  72nd  St 33,000  77,000  30:70 

16  East  72nd  St 60,000  105,000  36:63 

17  East  72nd  St 15,000  75,000  17:83 

18  East  72nd  St 55,000  100,000  35:65 

19  East  72nd  St 25,000  75,000  25:75 

20  East  72nd  St 55.000  105,000  34:66 

22  East  72nd  St 50,000  100,000  33:67 

161 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS   EAST   OF   FIFTH   AVENUE-Coni.««ed 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

__^!!!!!!iZ!!!^!!__,  Ratio 

Address                               'i                     ~  t  „--j 

Improvements  Lana 

24  East  72nd  St «  HO  000  $250,000                 ^  ^3 l^g 

(Madison  Ave.) 275,000  47b,UUU  ^^^^ 

I  East  73rd  St 40,000  luu,  ^^^^ 

3  East  73rd  St f^f^  f^'oo5               37.5:62.5 

5  East  73rd  St 45  000  /o,u                    37.5-62.5 

7  East  73rd  St 225,000  37b  OUU  ^^  ^^ 

8  East  73rd  St 15000  /^u  ^^ 

10  East  73rd  St 14-000  gs'ooo  13:87 

12  East  73rd  St 10.000  ^b^^U  ^^ 

17  East  73rd  St T({m(\  65  000  13:87 

18  East  73rd  St 10-000  ^b-^^u  ^^  ^^ 

21  East  73rd  St 20,000  4b,UUU  ^^^^^ 

24  East  73rd  St 30,0UU  .  29:71 

25  East  73rd  St 20,000  bO  OUU 

26  East  73rd  St >^0,UUU  -  ^^.gg 

27  East  73rd  St |000  bU  ^^^^ 

29  East  73rd  St... ^.'^^^  60  qOO  20:80 

(Madison  Ave.) 15-000  ^,^^ 

3  East  74th  St..., ^-OOU  ^  ^^g 

4  East  74th  St •4'^'^^^  g5  OOO  15:85 

5  East  74th  St ^'00^  70  qoO  12:88 

6  East  74th  St J^'OOO  ^'qqq  i5:85 

7  East  74th  St ^^'^^^  69,000  12 :88 

8  East  74th  St ^-00"  ^g  qoq  9:91 

10  East  74th  St ^'^^^  64,000  1 1 :89 

II  East  74th  St YmS  67,000  10:90 

12  East  74th  St ^-OUU  ^  .^^ 

13  East  74th  St ^-OOO  ^^^^  27:73 

14  East  74th  St f 4.UUU  ^7.33 

15  East  74th  St ^-000  qqq  22:78 

16  East  74th  St ^^m  62  000  9 :91 

17  East  74th  St.. ^-000  -qqq  9,91 

18  East  74th  St ^-OUU  ^_^^ 

19  East  74th  St °-OUU  -  ^^.^q 

20  East  74th  St /.-^J^  60 000  20:80 

21  East  74th  St l^'OOO  -  ^^^^q 

22  East  74th  St ^''^^^  73  000  11:89 

23  East  74th  St ^ms  50,000  9:91 

24  East  74th  St j^-OUU  ^  ^7.g3 

25  East  74th  St ^^'^^^  49,000  11:89 

26  East  74th  St ,°'^^(^5  70,000  12:88 

27  East  74th  St ^^'"^^  40,000  11:89 

28  East  74th  St jg'^^^  105,000  15:85 

29  East  74th  St. {^-^^^  60.000  20:80 

(Madison  Ave.) l^-OUO  29:71 

2  East  75th  St 45,000  26:74 

3  East  75th  St ^U.UUU  26:74 

5  East  75th  St ^O.OUU  3^.7 

6  East  75th  St ^O.OOU  ^^  37.5:62.5 

8  East  75th  St ^J^^^J  80.000  11:89 

9  East  75th  St O.OUU  ^^  2179 

10  East  75th  St ^^-^^^0  60,000  9:91 

11  East  75th  St 28000  46.000  38:62 

ll-AEast75th  St ^^-Ouu  ^^^^^  ^^.gp 

12  East  75th  St ^'^^^  73,000  9:91 

14  East  75th  St ■        ^^'^^^  46,000  29:71 

15East7Sth  St 1^-00^  71,000  9:91 

16  East  75th  St .^'^^^  55,000  17:83 

17  East  75th  St -•  •        ^^'^^^  71,000  29-71 

18  East  75th  St ^?-^^^  25,000  17:83 

19  East  7.Sth  St 5-000  ^9000  12:888 

162 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   EAST  OF   FIFTH   AVENUE— Continued 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               / ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

22  East  75th  St               $  14,000  $  70,000  17:83 

23Ea     75thSt":".:    :                8000  42,000  16:84 

3Eas    76h  S        60,000  105,000  36:67 

8Eas    76hS                   ....   50,000  75,000  40:60 

9  East  76th  St 40,000  65,000               38.1:6L9 

12  East  76th  St 9,000  58,000               ^^  P/E 

14  East  76th  St 35,000  60,000               36.8:632 

15  East  76th  St 30,000  52,000               ,,  Ef^, 

16  East  76th  St 33,000  57,000               36.6:63  4 

17  East  76th  St 30,000  55,000  35:65 

18  East  76th  St 35.000  65,000  35:65 

19  East  76th  St 33,000  62,000  35:65 

20  East  76th  St 9,000  56.000  14:86 

21  East  76th  St 27,000  53,000  33:67 

22  East  76th  St 6,000  52,000  11:89 

23  East  76th  St 8,000  52,000  13:87 

24  East  76th  St 8,000  54,000  13.87 

25  East  76th  St 8,000  52,000  13:87 

26  East  76th  St 24,000  52,000  31:69 

27  East  76th  St 8,000  45,000  15:85 

28  East  76th  St 10,000  55,000  15:85 

29  East  76th  St 10,000  65,000  13:87 

30  East  76th  St 15,000  85,000  15:85 

6  East  77th  St 42,000  80,000  34:66 

8  East  77th  St 40,000  80,000  33:67 

9  East  77th  St 9,000  48,000  16:84 

10  East  77th  St 35,000  78.000  31:69 

11  East  77th  St 7,000  45,000  13:87 

12  East  77th  St 27,000  76,000  26:74 

13  East  77th  St 18,000  45,000  29:71 

14  East  77th  St 25,000  75.000  25:75 

15  East  77th  St 15,000  45,000  25:75 

16  East  77th  St 25,000  75,000  25:75 

17  East  77th  St 7,000  45,000  13:87 

18  East  77th  St 35,000  75.000  32:68 

19  East  77th  St 15,000  45,000  25:75 

21  East  77th  St 4,500  33,000  12:88 

23  East  77th  St 4,500  33,000  12:88 

25  East  77th  St 4,500  33,000  12:88 

27  East  77th  St 4,500  33,000  12:88 

29  East  77th  St 6.000  66.000  8:92 

31  East  77th  St 5,000  35.000  12:88 

33  East  77th  St 5,000  35,000  12:88 

35  East  77th  St 15,000  53,000  22:78 

2  East  78th  St 35.000  100,000  26:74 

4  East  78th  St 24.000  66,000  27:23 

8  East  78th  St 20,000  95,000  17:83 

9  East  78th  St 85,000  140,000  37.7:62,3 

10  East  78th  St 20,000  85.000  19:81 

11  East  78th  St 50,000  100,000  33:67 

12  East  78th  St 10,000  60,000  14:86 

14  East  78th  St 10,000  60,000  14:86 

15  East  78th  St 60,000  100,000  37:63 

16  East  78th  St 12,000  48,000  20:80 

18  East  78th  St 12,000  48.000  20:80 

20  East  78th  St 10,000  75,000  12:88 

22  East  78th  St 5,000  43,000  10:90 

24  East  78th  St 5,000  42,000  11:89 

26  East  78th  St 8,000  36.000  18:82 

—  East  79th  St 18,000  62,000  22:78 

9  East  79th  St 25,000  60,000  29:71 

11  East  79th  St 7,000  70,000  9:91 

13  East  79th  St 7,000  70,000  9:91 

163 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS  EAST   OF  FIFTH   AVENVE— Continued 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

15  East  79th  St $8,000  $60,000  12:88 

17  East  79th  St 30,000  60,000  33:67 

19  East  79th  St 10,000  70,000  12:88 

21  East  79th  St 15.000  60,000  20:80 

23  East  79th  St 15.000  60,000  20:80 

25  East  79th  St 20,000  85,000  19:81 

27  East  79th  St 19,000  81,000  19:81 

29  East  79th  St 11,000  74,000  13:87 

31  East  79th  St 30,000  170,000  15 :85 

4  East  80th  St 15.000  45,000  25:75 

5  East  80th  St 30,000  60,000  33:67 

6  East  80th  St 15,000  45,000  25 :75 

7  East  80th  St 30,000  50,000  37:63 

8  East  80th  St 15,000  45,000  25:75 

10  East  80th  St 15,000  45,000  25:75 

12  East  80th  St 15,000  45,000  25:75 

13  East  80th  St 29.000  47,000  38.5:61.5 

14  East  80th  St 23,000  55,000  29:71 

18  East  80th  St 20,000  55,000  27:73 

19  East  80th  St 30,000  55,000  35:65 

20  East  80th  St 32.000  55,000  37:63 

21  East  80th  St 30,000  55,000  35:65 

22  East  80th  St 15.000  48.000  24:76 

24  East  80th  St 15.500  47.000  25:75 

26  East  80th  St 12.000  44.000  21:79 

28  East  80th  St 20.000  65.000  24:76 

2  East  81st  St 5.000  48.000  9:91 

4  East  81st  St 17.000  48.000  26:74 

5  East  81st  St 17.000  48.000  26:14 

6  East  81st  St 15.000  48.000  24:76 

7  East  81st  St 11,000  48.000  19:81 

8  East  81st  St 12.000  48.000  20:80 

9  East  81st  St 10.000  48.000  17:83 

10  East  81st  St 10,000  45.000  18:82 

11  East  81st  St 10.000  45.000  18:82 

12  East  81st  St 10.000  45.000  18:82 

14  East  81st  St 10.000  45.000  18:82 

15  East  81st  St 10.000  45.000  18:82 

17  East  81st  St 10.000  45.000  18:82 

19  East  81st  St 10,000  45,000  18:82 

20  East  81st  St 11,000  44,000  20:80 

22  East  81st  St 11,000  44.000  20:80 

25  East  81st  St .' 5,000  30,000  35:65 

2  East  82nd  St 32,000  68,000  32:68 

6  East  82nd  St 10,000  46.000  18:82 

8  East  82nd  St 8.000  43.000  16:84 

10  East  82nd  St 10,000  43.000  19:81 

12  East  82nd  St 11.000  46.000  16:84 

16  East  82nd  St 15.000  55.000  21:79 

19  East  82nd  St 25.000  55.000  31:69 

3  East  83rd  St 1,000  128,000  2:99 

7  East  83rd  St 35,000  100.000  26:74 

9  East  83rd  St 35.000  100,000  26:74 

11  East  83rd  St 23.000  47.000  33:67 

13  East  83rd  St 20.000  45.000  31:69 

14  East  83rd  St 10.000  44,000  19:81 

15  East  83th  St 13.000  39.000  25:75 

17  East  83rd  St 12.000  39.000  24:76 

19  East  83rd  St 9.000  39.500  19:81 

20  East  83rd  St 10.000  44.000  19:81 

21  Fast  83rd  St 10.000  35.000  22:78 

22  East  83rd  St 21.000  44.000  32:68 

23  East  83rd  St 9,000  33,000  21:79 

164 


SECTION   OF   SIDE  STREETS  EAST  OF   FIFTH   AVENUE— Continued 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              r * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

24  East  83rd  St $10,000  $44,000  19:81 

25  East  83rd  St 9,000  33,000  21:79 

26-28  East  83rd  St 28,000  99,000  22:78 

27  East  83rd  St 9,000  33,000  21:79 

29  East  83rd  St 17,000  53,000  24:76 

2  East  84th  St 2,000  55,000  4:96 

3  East  84th  St 12,000  55,000  18:82 

4-6-8  East  84th  St 15,000  205,000  7:93 

5  East  84th  St 7,000  55,000  18:82 

14  East  84th  St 10,000  130,000  7:93 

16  East  84th  St 34,000  57,000  37:63 

18  East  84th  St 33,000  57,000  37:63 

20  East  84th  St 33,000  57.000  37:63 

22  East  84th  St 3,000  21,000  12:88 

24  East  84th  St 4,000  28,000  12:88 

26  East  84th  St 4,000  28,000  12:88 

28  East  84th  St 7,000  46,000  13:87 

2  East  85th  St 10,000  30,000  25:75 

4  East  85th  St 8,000  21,000  18:82 

6  East  85th  St ; 7,500  22,500  25:75 

8  East  85th  St 8,000  22.000  27:73 

9  East  85th  St 10,000  30,000  25:75 

10  East  85th  St 8.000  22.000  27:73 

12  East  85th  St 7.500  22,500  25:75 

14  East  85th  St 3,000  27.000  10:90 

22-24  East  8Sth  St 9,000  55.000  14:86 

26  East  85th  St 1,000  27,000  4:96 

28  East  85th  St 8,000  27.000  23:77 

1  East  86th  St 22.000  48,000  31:69 

2  East  86th  St 10,000  40.000  20:80 

3  East  86th  St 4,000  35,000  10:90 

4  East  86th  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

5  East  86th  St 6.000  40.000  13:87 

6  East  86th  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

8  East  86th  St 6.000  40,000  13:87 

10  East  86th  .St 6,000  40,000  13-87 

19  East  86th  St 25.000  55.000  31:69 

19  East  88th  St 12.000  68.000  15:85 

15  East  90th  St 10.000  55,000  15:85 

—  East  90th  St 3,000  30,000  9:91 

22  East  91st  St 10,000  121,000  8:92 

24  East  91st  St 10.000  55.000  15:85 

2  East  92nd  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

3  East  92nd  St 11.000  42.000  21:79 

4  East  92nd  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

5  East  92nd  St 11.000  42.000  21:79 

6  East  92nd  St 7,000  36.000  16:84 

7  East  92nd  St 10,000  40.000  20:80 

8  East  92nd  St 8.000  38.000  17:83 

9  East  92nd  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

10  East  92nd  St 8.000  40.000  17:83 

11  East  92nd  St 10.000  40.000  20:80 

12  East  92nd  St 10.500  42.000  20:80 

13  East  92nd  St 11.000  50.000  18:82 

14  East  92nd  St 15.000  40.000  27:73 

15  East  92nd  St 13.000  39.000  25:75 

16  East  92nd  St 9.000  35.000  20:80 

17  East  92nd  St 10.000  38.000  21:79 

18  East  92nd  St 11.000  46,000  19:81 

19  East  92nd  St 10.000  38.000  21:79 

20  East  92nd  St 11,000  44.000  20:80 

21  East  92nd  St 10.000  39.000  20:80 

22  East  92nd  St 10,000  40,000  20:80 

165 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   EAST   OF   FIFTH   AVENVE— Continued 

Group  A  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              , * n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

23  East  92nd  St $11,000  $41,000  21:79 

24  East  92nd  St 22,000  44,000  33:67 

25  East  92nd  St 11,000  39,000  22:78 

26  East  92nd  St 9,000  40,000  18:82 

28  East  92nd  St 16,000  40,000  29:71 

1  East  93rd  St 12,000  45,000  21:79 

3  East  93rd  St 11,000  44,000  20:80 

4  East  93rd  St 7,000  140,000  5:95 

5  East  93rd  St 10.500  43,000  20:80 

6  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

7  East  93rd  St 10,500  42,000  20:80 

8  East  93rd  St 7,000  39,000  15:85 

9  East  93rd  St 10,000  41,000  20:80 

10  East  93rd  St 8,500  43,500  16:84 

11  East  93rd  St 10,000  39,000  20:80 

12  East  93rd  St 7,500  43,000  15:85 

14  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

15  East  93rd  St 10,000  40,000  20:80 

16  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

17  East  93rd  St 9,500  38,000  20:80 

18  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

19  East  93rd  St 9,500  38,000  20:80 

20  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

21  East  93rd  St 9,000  39.000  19:81 

22  East  93rd  St 7,000  40,000  15:85 

23  East  93rd  St 10.000  50,000  17:83 

24  East  93rd  St 9,000  40.000  18-82 

25  East  93rd  St 5,000  27,000  16:84 

27  East  93rd  St 5,000  27,000  16:84 

29  East  93rd  St 6,000  27,000  18:82 

31  East  93rd  St 5,000  27,000  16:84 

33  East  93rd  St 8,000  27,000  15:85 

$9,430,500  $34,575,000 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               , " n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

4  East  61st  St $155,000  $205,000  43:57 

6  East  61st  St 125,000  180,000  41 :59 

11  East  61st  St 66,000  94,000  41:59 

1  East  62nd  St 125,000  180,000  41:59 

6  East  62nd  St 79,000  106.000  43:57 

8  East  62nd  St 73,000  97,000  43:57 

10  East  62nd  St 89,000  96,000  48:52 

llEast62ndSt 115,000  175,000  40:60 

5  East  63rd  St 66,000  96,000  41:59 

15  East  63rd  St 69,000  86,000  45:55 

17  East  63rd  St 95,000  105.000  47:53 

3  East  64th  St 215,000  285,000  43:57 

4  East  64th  St 90,000  120.000  43:57 

28  East  64th  St 61,000  84,000  42:58 

6  East  65th  St 102,000  98.000  51:49 

7  East  6Sth  St 68,000  97.000  41:59 

8-10  East  65th  St 175.000  175,000  50:50 

12  East  65th  St 50,000  75.000  40:60 

5  East  66th  St 102.000  108,000  48:52 

9  East  66th  St 155.000  185.000  46:54 

2  East  67th  St 115.000  135,000  46:54 

5  East  67th  St 76,000  180,000  42:58 

166 


SECTION   OF  SIDE   STREETS  EAST   OF  FIFTH   AVENUE- 
Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                              (                       '"'  "^ 

Improvements  Land 

15  East  67th  St ^.  •  • .  $90,000  $125,000 

16  East  67th  St 80,000  100,000 

9  East  68th  St 245,000  180,000 

18-20  East  68th  St 100,000  130,000 

3  East  69th  St 66,000  104,000 

3  East  70th  St 85,000  125,000 

11  East  70th  St 115,000  135,000 

12  East  70th  St 87,000  113,000 

13  East  70th  St 90,000  110,000 

14  East  70th  St 91,000  109,000 

15  East  70th  St 80,000  105,000 

16  East  70th  St 90,000  105,000 

17  East  70th  St 80,000  100,000 

18  East  70th  St 85,000  100,000 

19  East  70th  St 105,000  120,000 

870  Madison  Ave 87,000  78,000 

7  East  72nd  St 85,000  105,000 

14  East  73rd  St 50,000  65,000 

16  East  73rd  St 50,000  65,000 

19  East  73rd  St 40,000  60,000 

20  East  73rd  St 50,000  65,000 

22  East  73rd  St 50,000  65,000 

23  East  73rd  St 60,000  50,000 

1  East  75th  St 155,000  185,000 

5  East  76th  St 40.000  60,000 

6  East  76th  St 52,000  80,000 

7  East  76th  St 51,000  74,000 

10  East  76th  St 54,000  66,000 

11  East  76th  St 37,000  58,000 

WA  East  76th  St 46,000  64,000 

4  East  77th  St 60,000  85,000 

3  East  78th  St 140,000  145,000 

4  East  78th  St 95,000  145,000 

5  East  78th  St 75,000  100,000 

6  East  78th  St 65,000  100,000 

7  East  78th  St 75,000  100,000 

8  East  78th  St 120,000  125,000 

10  East  78th  St 110,000  105,000 

12  East  78th  St 75,000  100,000 

14  East  78th  St 75,000  95,000 

16  East  78th  St 100,000  125,000 

18  East  78th  St 100,000  100,000 

—  East  78th  St 87,000  93,000 

2  East  80th  St 60,000  60,000 

3  East  80th  St 65,000  100,000 

9  East  80th  St 30,000  45,000 

11  East  80th  St 47,000  45,000 

15-17  East  80th  St 100,000  100,000 

16  East  80th  St 40.000  55.000 

3  East  81st  St 45,000  50,000 

16  East  81st  St 45,000  45.000 

18  East  81st  St 50,000  45,000 

21  East  81st  St 50,000  45,000 

23  East  81st  St 51,000  46,000 

24-26  East  81st  St 99.500  70.500 

3  East  82nd  St 70,000  60,000 

4  East  82nd  St 38,000  52,000 

5  East  82nd  St 72,000  58,000 

7  East  82nd  St 45.000  55,000 

9  East  82nd  St 40,000  55.000 

11  East  82nd  St 40,000  55,000 

14  East  82nd  St 47,000  48,000 

15  East  82nd  St 40,000  55,000 


■Continued 


Ratio 

42:58 
44:56 
58:42 
43:57 
38.82:61.18 
40:60 
46:54 
44:56 
45:55 
45:55 
43:57 
46:54 
44:56 
46:54 
48:52 
53:47 
45:55 
43:57 
43:57 
40:60 
43:57 
43:57 
55:45 
54:46 
40:60 

39.3:60.7 
41:59 
45:55 

38.9:61.1 
42:58 
41:59 
49:51 
40:60 
43:57 
39:61 
43:57 
49:51 
51:49 
43:57 
40:60 
44:56 
50:50 
48:52 
50:50 
39:61 
40:60 
49:51 
56:44 
42:58 
47:53 
50:50 
53:47 
53:47 
53:47 
66:44 
54:46 
42:58 
55:45 
45:55 
42:. 58 
42:58 
49:51 
42:58 


167 


SECTION   OF   SIDE  STREETS  EAST   OF  FIFTH  AVENUE— Concluded 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Woitld  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               / * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

17  East  82nd  St $40,000  $55,000  42-58 

18  East  82nd  St 68,000  57,000  54:46 

20  East  82nd  St 66,000  59,000  53:47 

22  East  82nd  St 70,000  65,000  52:48 

24  East  82nd  St ,.  68,000  59,000  54:46 

6  East  83rd  St 85,000  70,000  55:45 

8  East  83rd  St 80,000  65,000  55:45 

10  East  83rd  St 75,000  55,000  58:42 

7  East  84th  St 45,000  55,000  45:55 

9  East  84th  St 85,000  55,000  61:39 

11  East  84th  St 88,000  57,000  61 :39 

13-15  East  84th  St 75,000  100,000  43:57 

7  East  86th  St 45,000  65,000  61:59 

13  East  86th  St 47,000  58,000  45 :55 

15  East  86th  St 47,000  53,000  47:53 

17  East  86th  St 52,000  58.000  47:53 

4  East  87th  St 130,000  90,000  59:41 

6  East  87th  St 150,000  155,000  49:51 

5  East  88th  St 65,000  60,000  52:48 

7  East  88th  St 57,000  53.000  52:48 

9  East  88th  St 58,000  57,000  50:50 

4  East  89th  St 134.000  66.000  66:33 

5  East  89th  St 70,000  80.000  47:53 

9  East  89th  St 68.000  62.000  52:48 

11  East  89th  St 58,000  47.000  55:45 

—  East  89th  St 69,000  51,000  57:43 

9  East  90th  St 85,000  60,000  59:41 

11  East  90th  St 85,000  55,000  61:39 


$8,902,500  $10,067,500 


SECTION  OF  SIDE  STREETS  OFF  RIVERSIDE  DRIVE 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.3/^:61.66) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               c                        *  ~      J^ 

Improvements  Land 

327  West  82nd  St $7,000  $21,000 

331  West  82nd  St 12.000  25,000 

300  West  83rd   St 4,000  44,000 

302  West  83rd    St 3,000  31000 

304  West  83rd   St 3  000  25,000 

306  West  83rd   St 3,000  8,000 

308  West  83rd    St 6.000  4,000 

309  West  83rd   St 4,500  2.500 

310  West  83rd   St 5,500  4,500 

311  West  83rd    St 4,500  2,500 

312  West  83rd   St 4.000  4.000 

313  West  83rd   St 4,500  12,500 

314  West  83rd   St 4,000  4,000 

315  West  83rd   St 4,500  2,500 

316  West  83rd   St 3,300  14,500 

301  West  84th   St 8,000  20,000 

328  West  84th   St 5,000  12,500 

330  West  84th   St 7,500  5.000 

332  West  84th   St 7.500  5.000 

334  West  84th   St 6,.S00  13,500 

338  West  84th   St 9.000  5  000 

340  West  84th   St 6.500  13,500 

342  West  84th   St 6.500  13,500 

344  West  84th   St 8,000  15,000 

347   West  84th   St 6,500  13,500 

300  West  85th   St 7,000  15,000 

302  West  85th   St 5.000  15,000 

304  West  85th   St 8.000  13.500 

314  V/est  85th   St 35,000  65,000 

316  West  85th   St 7,000.  13,000 

318  West  85th   St 7,000  13.000 

320  West  85th   St 7.000  13.000 

322  West  85th   St 7.000  13.000 

323  West  85th   St 1.000  21.000 

324  West  85th    St 7.000  13,000 

326  West  85th   St 7,000  13,000 

329  West  85th   St 6,500  16,500 

331  West  8Sth   St 6,500  16.500 

333  West  85th   St 6,500  16,500 

335  West  85th   St 6,500  16,500 

Z2,7  West  85th   St 6,500  16,500 

339-41  West  8Sth  St 11.000  21,000 

303  West  86th   St i  11,500  20,500 

304  West  86th    St 12.500  2  ,000 

306  West  86th   St 12.500  21,000 

308  West  86th   St 12.000  20,000 

310  West  86th   St 12,000  20,000 

312  West  86th   St 11.000  18,500 

314  West  86th   St 13.000  21.500 

316  West  86th   St 12,500  21.000 

318  West  86th   St 12.500  2  .000 

320  West  86th   St 12.500  2  ,000 

322  West  86th   St 12,500  21.000 

328  West  86th   St :..  1.000  55.000 

332  West  86th   St 11,000  20.000 

334  West  86th   St 11.000  20.000 

336  West  86th   St 11,000  20,000 

337  West  86th   St 11.000  20.000 

338  West  86th   St 12.000  20.000 

339  West  86th   St 11,000  20.000 

341   West  86th   St 11,000  20,000 


Ratio 

25:75 
33:67 
8:92 
9:91 
11:89 
14:86 
29:71 
26:74 
27:73 
26:74 
26:74 
26:74 
26:74 
26:74 
19:81 
29:71 
29:71 
33:67 
33:67 
33:67 
37:63 
2>2,:67 
33:67 
35:65 
33:67 
32:68 
25:75 
37:63 
35:65 
35:65 
35:65 
35:65 
35:65 

5:95 
35-65 
35:65 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
33:67 
36:64 
2,7 -.6^ 
37:62, 
38:62 
27:62, 
37:63 
38:62 
37:63 
37:63 
37:63 
27:62 

2:98 
35:65 
35:65 
35:65 
35:65 
27:62 
35:65 
35:65 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   OFF   RIVERSIDE   DRIVE—Continued 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' * >  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

343  West  86th   St $11,000                 $20,000  35:65 

307  West  87th   St 8,000                    13,000  38:62 

313  West  87th   St 7,500                    13,500  36:64 

317  West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

319  West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

321  West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

322  West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

323  West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

325   West  87th   St 9,000                    15,000  37:63 

—  West  87th   St 1,000                    58,000  2:98 

$578,800  $1,350,000 


307  West 

309  West 

310  West 

311  West 

312  West 

313  West 

314  West 

315  West 

317  West 

318  West 

319  West 

320  West 

321  West 

323  West 

324  West 

325  West 

326  West 
329  West 
307  West 

332  West 
303  West 
305  West 
307  West 
309  West 
311  West 
313  West 
317  West 
319  West 
321  West 
323  West 
325   West 

327  West 
329  West 
331    West 

333  West 

335  West 

336  West 

337  West 
339  West 
341  West 
343   West 

345  West 

346  West 
349  West 


Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ' * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

82nd  St $10,000  $15,000  40:60 

82nd  St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

82nd  St 13,000  13,000  50:50 

82nd  St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

82nd  St 12,000  12,500  49:51 

82nd  St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

82nd  St 13,000  13,000  50:50 

82nd  St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

82nd  St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

82nd  St 12,000  13,000  48:52 

82nd  St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

82nd  St 12,000  11.000  52:48 

82nd  St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

82nd  St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

82nd  St ; 12,000  11,000  52:48 

82nd  St 15,000  15,000  50:50 

82nd  St '14,000  18,000  44:56 

82nd  St 31,000  24,000  56:44 

83rd  St 10,000  14,000  42:58 

83rd  St 17,500  17,500  50:50 

84th  St 11,000  14,000  44:56 

84th  St 14,500  13.000  53:47 

84th  St 14,500  13.000  53:47 

84th  St 14,000  12,500  53:47 

84th  St 15,000  13,000  54:46 

84th  St 14,000  12,500  53:47 

84th  St 14,500  13,000  53:47 

84th  St 9,500  14.500  40:60 

84th  St 10,000  13,500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13,500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13.500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13.500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13.500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13,500  41:59 

84th  St 10,000  13.500  41:59 

84th  St 11.000  13,500  45:55 

84th  St 6,500  13.500  44:66 

84th  St 11,000  13,500  45:55 

84th  St 11,000  14.500  43:57 

84th  St 15,000  13,000  54:46 

84th  St 13,000  12.500  52:48 

84th  St 15,000  13,000  54:46 

84th  St 12,000  17,000  41:59 

84th  St 14,000  13,000  52:48 


170 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   OFF   RIVERSIDE   BRIVE— Continued 
Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              ' ' Z 7  R^^'o 

Improvements  Land 

351   West  84th   St $12,500  $12,500  50:50 

353   West  84th   St 12,500  2,500  50:50 

355   West  84th   St 12,500  12,500  50:50 

357   West  84th   St          15,000  13,000  54:46 

m  Wesl  85S   St:: 15.000  14,000  52:48 

311    West  85th    St                  14,500  13,500  52:48 

III  wilt  85th  s!:::::..: 15,000  hooo  52:48 

327  West  85th   St 15.000  14,000  52:48 

332  West  85th   St 20,000  20,000  50:50 

334  West  85th    St            20,000  20,000  50:50 

302  wesl  86!h  s!: : . : : 12,000  19,000  38.7 .60 

305   West  86th   St 11.000  20,000  45:65 

307  West  86th   St 11.000  20,000  45:65 

309  West  86th   St 11,000  20,000  45:65 

311    West  86th   St 14,000  20,000  41:59 

313  West  86th   St 15,000  17,000  47:53 

315   West  86th   St 14.000  18.000  44:56 

317  West  86th   St 14.000  17,000  45:55 

319  West  86th   St 14.000  18,000  44:56 

321   West  86th   St 14,000  17,000  45:55 

323  West  86th   St 17,500  18,500  49:51 

324  West  86th   St 17,500  19,500  42:58 

325  West  86th   St 17,500  19,500  47:53 

327   West  86th   St 15.000  18,000  4S:.55 

329  West  86th   St 16.000  20.000  43:57 

330  West  86th   St H.OOO  15,000  42:58 

331  West  86th   St 16.000  18,000  47:53 

333  West  86th   St 16,000  20,000  ,,43:57 

335  West  86th   St 13.000  20,000  39.4:60  6 

345   West  86th   St 20,000  24,000  45:55 

347  West  86th   St 21,000  24,000  47:53 

349  West  86th   St 23,000  25,000  57:43 

381   West  86th   St 23,000  25,000  57:43 

302  West  87th   St 8,500  12,500  ,„  40:60 

303  West  87th   St 9,000  14,000  39.1:60  9 

304  West  87th   St 8,500  12,500  ,„  40.60 

305  West  87th    St 8,500  13,500  38.6;6L4 

306  West  87th    St 8,500  12.500  40:60 

308  West  87th   St 8,500  12,500  ,„  40-60 

309  West  87th   St 8,500  13,500  38.6:61 4 

310  West  87th   St 8,000  12,000  ,„  40.60 

311  West  87th   St 8,500  13.500  38.6:614 

312  West  87th   St 8,500  12.500  ,„  40-60 

315   West  87th   St 8.500  13.500  38.6:6L4 

324  W^est  87th   St 11,000  15.000  42:58 

326  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

327  West  87th   St 14.000  12,000  54:46 

328  West  87th   St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

329  West  87th   St 13.000  11.500  53:47 

330  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

331  West  87th    St 13.000  11,500  53:47 

332  West  87th   St 11,000  15.000  42:58 

333  West  87th   St 14,000  12.000  54:46 

334  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

335  West  87th   St 14.000  14,000  50:50 

336  West  87th   St 11,000  15.000  42:.S8 

337  West  87th   St 14.000  14.000  50:50 

338  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

339  West  87th   St 18.000  13.500  57:43 

340  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

341  West  87th   St 19.000  15.000  56-44 

342  West  87th   St 11.000  15.000  42:58 

343  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 


171 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS   OFF   RIVERSIDE    DRIVE— Concluded 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              > ' — ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

344  We=t  87th   St -     $20,000  $15,000  57:43 

345  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

346  West  87th   St 21,000  15,000  58:42 

347  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

348  West  87th   St 20,000  15,000  57:43 

349  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

350  West  87th   St 20,000  15,000  57:43 

351  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

352  West  87th    St 20,000  15,000  57:43 

353  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

355  West  87th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

302  West  88th   St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

303  West  88th   St 11,000  14,000  40:54 

304  West  88th   St 15,000  15,500  49:51 

305  West  88th   St 12,000  13,000  48:52 

306  West  88th   St 15,000  15,500  48:52 

307  West  88th   St 12,000  14,000  46:54 

308  West  88th   St 15.000  15,500  48:52 

309  West  88th    St 11.000  14,000  44:56 

3i0  West  88th   St 15,000  15,000  50:50 

311  West  88th   St 17,500  13,500  56:44 

312  West  88th   St 15,000  15,500  48-.52 

313  West  88th   St 12,000  14.000  46:54 

314  West  88th   St 15.000  15.500  48:52 

315  West  88th    St 20,000  15.000  57:43 

316  West  88th   St 12,000  15,000  44:56 

317  West  88th   St 20.000  15,000  57:43 

318  West  88th   St 12.000  15,000  44:56 

319  West  88th   St 17,000  15,000  53:47 

320  West  88th   St 12.000  15,000  44:56 

321  West  88th   St 17,000  15,000  53:47 

322  West  88th   St 12,000  15.000  44:56 

323  West  88th   St 17.000  15.000  56:44 

324  West  88th   St 12,000  15.000  44:56 

325  West  88th   St 19.000  15,000  56:44 

326  West  88th   St 15.000  14,000  52:48 

327  West  88th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

32«   West  88th    St 14,500  13,500        •  52:48 

329  West  88th    St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

330  West  88th   St 14,500  13,500  52:48 

331  West   88th    St 19.000  15,000  56:44 

332  West  88th   St 18,000  15,000  55:45 

333  West  88th   St 19,000  15,000  56:44 

334  West  88th   St 18.000  15.000  55:45 

335  West  88th   St 19.000  15.000  56:44 

336  West  88th   St 18.500  15.500  54:46 

337  West   88th    St 19.000  15.000  56:44 

.US  West  88th   St 18.500  15.500  54:46 

339  West  88th   St 19.000  15.000  56:44 

.340  West  88th   St 18,500  15.500  54:46 

.341   West  88th   St 19.000  15.000  56:44 

342  V/est  88th   St 18.500  15.500  54:46 

344  West  88th   St 16.500  15.500  52:48 

$2,289,500  $2,419,500 


172 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS  WEST  OF  CENTRAL  PARK 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.84:61.66) 
Group  A:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  ' * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

5   West  90th   St $9,000  $15,000  38:62 

7   West  90th    St 9,000  15,000  38:62 

9  West  90th   St 9,000  15,000  38:62 

11    West  90th    St  9,000  15,000  38:62 

13  West  90th   St 9,000  15,000  38:62 

15   West  90th    St 9,000  15,000  38:62 

17   West  90th   St 7,500  14,000  35:65 

19  West  90th   St 7,500  13,500  36:64 

20  West  90th   St 8.500  14,000  38:62 

21  West  90th   St 7,500  13,500  36:64 

28  West  90th   St 8,000  15,000  35:65 

30  West  90th    St 7.000  15,000  32:68 

32  West  90th   St 8,000  15,000  35:65 

34  West  90th   St 7,000  15,000  32:68 

38  West  90th   St 7.000  15,000  32:68 

40  West  90th   St 8,000  15,000  35:65 

53  West  90th    St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

54  West  90th    St 8,000  14,000  36:64 

55  West  90th   St 8,000  14,000  36:64 

56  West  90th   St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

57  West  90th   St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

58  West  90th   St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

59  West  90th   St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

60  West  90th    St 8.000  14,000  36:64 

61  West  90th   St 6,000  14,000  30:70 

63   West  90th    St 6,000  14,000  30:70 

65   West  90th   St 6.000  14,000  30:70 

28   West   91st    St 7.500  13.500  36:64 

30  West   91st    St 7,500  13.500  36:64 

32  West  91st    St 7.500  13.500  36:64 

34  West   91st   St 9.500  13.500  38:62 

36  West   91st   St 9,500  13.500  38:62 

38  West   91st    St 9.500  13.500  38:62 

40  West   91st   St 9.500  13.500  38:62 

42  West   91st    St 7,500  13.500  36:64 

44  West  91st    St 7.500  13.500  36:64 

45  West   91st   St 7.000  15.000  32:68 

46  West  91st   S't 7.500  13.500  36:64 

47  West  91st    St 5.500  13.000  30:70 

49   West   91st   St 9,000  15,000  38:62 

53   West  91st    St 9.000  15.000  37:63 

55   West  91st    St 8.000  13,000  38-62 

57   West   91st   St 8.000  15.000  35:65 

59   West   91st   St 6.000  13.500  31:69 

70   West   91st   St 5.500  16.000  25-75 

72   West   91st    St 5.500  16.000  25:75 

74   West   91st    St 5,000  16.000  24:76 

31  West  92nd  St 3.000  11.000  21:79 

33  West  92nd   St 4,000  14.000  22:78 

35  West  92nd   St 4,000  14.000  22:78 

37  West  92nd  St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

39  West  92nd  St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

41  West  92nd   St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

43  We^t  92nd   St 4,000  14.000  22:78 

45  West  92nd   St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

47  West  92nd   St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

49  West  92nd   St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

51   West  92nd  St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

53  West  92nd  St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

55  West  92nd  St 4.000  14.000  22:78 

57  West  92nd   St 4,000  14,000  22:78 

173 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   WEST   OF   CENTRAL   PARK— Continued 


Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 


Assessed  Values 


Address 


59  West  92nd 

St 

61   West  92nd 

St 

62  West  92nd 

St 

63  West  92nd 

St 

64  West  92nd 

St 

65  West  92nd 

St 

66  West  92nd 

St 

67  West  92nd 

St 

68  West  92nd 

St 

69  West  92nd 

St 

70  West  92nd 

St 

71   West  92nd 

St 

72  West  92nd 

St 

8  West  93rd 

St 

19  West  93rd 

St 

21    West  93rd 

St 

23  West  93rd 

St 

25   West  93rd 

St 

27  West  93rd 

St 

29  West  93rd 

St 

31    West  93rd 

St 

33   West  93rd 

St 

35   West  93rd 

St 

45   West  93rd 

St 

47  West  93rd 

St 

49  West  93rd 

St 

57   West  93rd 

St 

58  West  93rd 

St 

61    West  93rd 

St 

63   West  93rd 

St 

65  West  93rd 

St 

67  West  93rd 

St 

19   West  94th 

St 

21    West  94th 

St 

22  West  94th 

St 

23   West  94th 

St 

24  West  94th 

St 

25   West   94th 

St 

26   West   94th 

St 

27  West  94th 

St 

28  West   94th 

St 

29  West  94th 

St 

30  West  94th 

St 

32   West  94th 

St 

37   West  94th 

St 

38  West  94th 

St 

39  West  94th 

St 

40  West  94th 

St 

41   West  94th 

St 

42  West  94th 

St 

43   West  94th 

St 

44  West  94th 

St 

45   West  94th 

St 

46   West  94th 

St 

47   West  94th 

St 

55   West"  94th 

St 

57   West  94th 

St 

59  West  94th 

St 

61    West  94th 

St 

62   West  94th 

St 

63   West  94th 

St 

64  West  94th 

St 

65  West  94th 

St 

Improvements 
, . .  $4,000 
4,000 
9,500 
4,000 
6,000 
4,000 
6,000 
4,000 
6,000 
4,000 
6,000 
4,000 
4,500 
3,000 
2,000 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
1,500 
1,500 
1,500 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
6,000 
7,000 
6,000 
5,500 
5,500 
6,500 
5,500 
6,000 
6,500 
6.000 
6,000 
7,500 
6,000 
7,500 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
5,500 
6,000 
5,500 
6,500 
4,500 
4.000 
7.000 
7,000 
7,000 
6,000 
6,500 
6.000 
6,500 
6,000 


Land 
$14,000 
14,000 
16,500 
14.000 
15,000 
14.000 
15,000 
14.000 
15,000 
14,000 
15,000 
14,000 
14.500 
18.000 
13.500 
14,000 
14,000 
14,000 
14,000 
14,000 
13,000 
13,000 
13,000 

9,000 
13,000 

9,000 
10.000 
10.000 
10.000 
10.000 
10.000 
10,000 
10,500 
12,000 
12.500 
11.000 
11,000 
11,500 
11.500 
10.500 
11.000 
10.500 
11.000 
12.500 
12.000 
12.500 
12.000 
12,500 
12,000 
11,000 
12,000 
11,000 
13.500 

9.500 

9.500 
13,500 
13.500 
13.500 
13.000 
12,000 
12.000 
12,000 
12,000 


Ratio 

22:78 
22:78 
37:63 
22:78 
29:71 
22:78 
29:71 
22:78 
29:71 
22:78 
29:71 
22:78 
24:76 
14:86 
16:84 
15:85 
15:85 
15:85 
15:85 
15:85 
16:84 
16:84 
16:84 
14:86 
10:90 
14:86 
17:83 
17:83 
17:83 
17:83 
17:83 
17:83 
36:64 
37:63 
32:68 
33:67 
33:67 
36:64 
32:68 
36:64 
37:63 
36:64 
35:65 
37:63 
33:67 
37:63 
33:67 
32:68 
33:67 
33:67 
33:67 
33:67 
32:68 
32:68 
30:70 
34:66 
34:66 
34:66 
32:68 
35:65 
33:67 
35:65 
33:67 


174 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS  WEST  OF   CENTRAL   FARK— Continued 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' ' Z 7  R^tio 

Improvements  Land 

66  West  94th   St $6  50o  $12000  35:65 

67  West  94th   St 6,500  3,500  32  68 

68  West  94th   St 6,500  12,000  35  65 

69  West  94th   St 6,500  3,500  32  68 

70  West  94th   St 6.500  2,000  35  65 

71  West  94th   St 6,500  3,500  32  68 

72  West   94th    St 6,500  12,000  35.6b 

76  Weft  94th   St .  6,000  11,000  3   :6 

5   West  95th   St 9,000  7,000  35  65 

25   West  95th    St 6,500  .000  37  63 

?7   West   QSth    St                  6,500  11,000  37:63 

I  Weft  95th  1:::::::::: 6,500  11,000  3763 

33   West  95th    St 5,500  1,000  33:67 

35   West  95th   St 5,500  0.000  3.:65 

37  West  95th   St 5,500  0,000  35:65 

39  West  95th   St 5.500  0,500  34:66 

40  West  95th   St 5,000  2.500  29.71 

42  West  95th   St 4.500  12.000  27.73 

43  West  95th   St 6.500  1.000  37:63 

44  West  95th   St 5.000  13.000  28.72 

45  West  95th   St 7.000  1.500  38:62 

46  West  95th   St 4.500  2.500  26.74 

47  West  95th   St 7.000  1.500  38  62 

48  West  95th   St 4.500  2,000  27.73 

49  West  95th   St 7.000  1.500  38-62 

50  West  95th   St 4,500  2.000  27.73 

51  West  95th   St 7.000  .500  38:62 

52  West  95th   St 6.000  1.000  35  65 

=;4  West   9Sth    St                4.500  12.000  27  -.7 6 

6  wS  95S  St:::::: 4.500  12.500  26:74 

58  West  95th    St 4.000  1.000  27:73 

60  West  95th   St 6.000  2.000  33:67 

62  We.st  95th   St 6,500  2,500  34:66 

64  West  95th   St 4.000  1,000  27:73 

66  West  95th   St 4,500  2.500  26:74 

67  West  95th   St 5.500  1.000  33:67 

68  West  95th   St , 4.000  2.000  25.75 

69  West  95th   St 5.500  1.000  33.67 

71   West  95th   St 6.500  2.000  35:65 

73  West  95th   St 6.000  1.500  34:66 

75   West  95th   St 5.000  10,000  33:67 

$950,500  $2,133,500 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               '  I      T" 

Improvements  Land 

2  West  90th   St $2,500  $19,000 

4  West  90th   St       H'OOO  14.000 

6  will  90th   St 11.000  14.000 

8  West  90th   St .000  3,500 

10  West  90th   St .000  4.000 

12   West  90th   St .500  5.500 

14  West  90th   St .500  5.500 

16  West  90th   St 1.500  5  500 

18  West  90th   St 4,000  5,500 

20  West  90th   St 4,000  5,500 

22  West  90th   St 1,000  5.000 

23  West  90th   St 12,500  12.500 


Ratio 

57:43 
44:56 
44:56 
45:55 
44:56 
43:57 
43:57 
43:57 
47:53 
43:57 
42:58 
50:50 


175 


SECTION   OF   SIDE   STREETS  WEST  OF  CENTRAL  VARK— Continued 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              < * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

24  West  90th    St $11,000  $15,000  42:58 

25  West  90th   St 13,000  13,000  50-50 

26  West  90th   St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

27  West  90th   St 13,000  13,000  50:50 

29  West  90th   St 9,500  14,500  40:60 

31    West  90th    St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

33  West  90th    St 9,500  14,500  40:60 

35  West  90th   St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

36  West  90th   St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

37  West  90th    St 9,500  14,500  40:60 

39  West  90th   St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

41  West  90th   St 9,500  14,500  40:60 

42  West  90th   St 7,000  15,000  40:60 

43  West  90th   St 10,000  15,000  40:60 

44  West  90th   St 18.000  15,000  55:45 

45  West  90th   St 9.000  14,000  39:61 

46  West  90th   St 18,000  15.000  55:45 

47  West  90th   St 9.500  12.500  43:57 

48  West  90th   St 19.000  15,000  56:44 

49  West  90th   St 9.500  12.500  43:57 

50  West  90th   St 19.000  15,000  56:44 

51  West  90th   St 9.500  13.000  42:58 

52  West  90th    St 19.000  15,000  56:44 

17   West  91st   St 8,500  13,500           38.64:61.36 

19   West   91st   St 9.500  13.500  41:59 

21  West   91st    St 9.500  13,500  41:59 

22  West   91st    St 9,500  13,500  41:.S9 

23  West  91st    St 9,500  13,500  41:59 

24  West   91st    St 9.500  13,500  41:59 

25  West   91st    St 9.000  13,000  41:59 

26  West  91st    St 9.500  13,500  41:59 

27  West   91st    St 10,000  13,500  43:57 

29  West   91st   St 11,000  14,000  44:56 

31  West   91st    St 9,000  14,000  39:61 

33  West   91st    St 11.000  14,000  44:56 

35  West   91st    St 8,500  13,500           38.64:61.36 

37  West   91st    St 11,000  14,000  39:61 

39  West   91st   St 11.000  14,000  44:56 

41  West   91st    St 9.000  14,000  39:61 

43  West  91st    St 9,000  14,000  39:61 

48   West  91st    St 9,500  13.500  41:59 

50  West  91st    St 9.500  13.500  41:59 

51  West  91st    St 8,500  13,500          38.64:61.36 

52  West   91st   St 9,500  13,500  41:.59 

54   West  91st    St 9,500  13,500  41:59 

56   West   91st    St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

58   West   91st   St 11.000  14,000  44:56 

60  West  91st    St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

62   West  91st    St 11,000  14,000  44:56 

64   West   91st    St 11.000  15,000  42:58 

66   West  91st   St 11,000  14,000  44:56 

68   West  91st    St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

30  West  92nd   St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

32  West  92nd   St 9,500  12,500  43:57 

34  West  92nd  St 9,500  12,500  43:57 

36  West  92nd   St 9.500  12.500  43:57 

38  West  92nd   St 9,500  12,500  43:57 

40  West  92nd  St 9,500  12.500  43:57 

42  West  92nd   St 8,000  12.500  42:58 

44  West  92nd   St 10.500  12.500  46:54 

46  West  92nd   St 9.000  13..000  41:51 

48  West  92nd   St 9.500  13.000  42:58 

50  West  92nd  St 9,500  13,000  42:58 


176 


I 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS  WEST  OF   CENTRAL   PARK— Concluded 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' ' ; 7  R^tio 

Improvements  Land 

52  West  92nd   St $9,500  $13000  42:58 

54  West  92nd   St 9,500  13,000  42.58 

cfi  West  92nd   St                         9,500  12,500  43:57 

58  We      92nd   St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

60  We      92nd   S .      20  500  21,500  49:51 

11  West  94"h   S 8,500  13,500           38.64:61.36 

3  We  94h  s ::::::    9,000  uooo  41:59 

4  We      94h   S  ::::::                SSOO  12,500  40:60 

5  W?s    94t     St                            9,000  12.000  43:57 

16  We  94h  s  ■;;::::::::       8,500  12,500  40:6o 

7  Wes    94h   S        .     9,000  12,000  43:57 

8  Wes     94  h    S                       8,500  12,500  40:60 

20  wes;9lS  11:::::::::::: 8,500  12,500  40:6o 

31   West  94th   St 7,500  8,500  47:53 

33  West  94th   St 7,500  8,500  47:53 

34  West  94th    St              7,500  11,500  39:61 

35  West94lh    St:::::::: ?,000  UOOO  41:59 

36  West  94th   St 7,500  1,500  39:61 

49  West  94th   St          9,500  13.500  41:59 

51   Wes     94h    S 9,500  13,500  41:59 

53  west9llh  §1::::::: 9,500  13500  41:59 

60  West  94th    St 12.000  16.500  42:58 

7^   Wp<;t   94th    St                          9,000  13,000  41  .iV 

74  We      94th   S  ":■■:: :                     H  OOO  13.000  46:54 

75  Wes     04h    S            9,000  14,000  39:61 

4  We  95ti;  St: : . : : : 9.000  n.ooo  45  5 

6  West  95th    St                  9,000  11.000  45:55 

7  We  95th  s:::::::  .  : 13,000  13.000  50:5o 

8  Wes    95th   St              9.000  11,000  45:.S5 

9  We      95       S'::                14,000  12.000  54:46 

10  Wes    95  h   S                        11,000  12,000  48:52 

?  wS95tK  s{::::::::::.: 12,000  12,000  50:5o 

12  West  95th   St              11,500  12.500  48:52 

3  ws  Is  sl:::. :::::.: 12.500  12,500  5o:5o 

14  West  95th   St 11,500  2,000  48:52 

16  West  95th   St 11,500  3,000  47:53 

17  West  95th   St  9.500  12,000  44:56 

18  Wesl9Sth   §1 8,000  12,000  40:60 

19  West   9Sth    St         9.500  12,500  43:57 

20  wS  95th   St: 8,500  12,500  40:60 

21  West  95th   St 10,500  2,500  46:54 

22  West  95th    St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

23  West  95th    St 11,000  13,000  46:54 

24  West  95th   St 9.500  2,000  44:56 

26  West  95th    St 9,500  2,000  44:56 

28  West  95th   St 9.500  12.000  44:56 

30  West  95th   St     9,500  12.000  44:56 

31  Wes    05th   St               .    7500  11.000  40:60 

32  Weft  951!;  sE:::::: 9.500  12.000  44:S6 

34  West  95th   St 9,500  12,000  44:56 

36  West  9Sth   St 9,500  12.000  44:56 

38  West  95th   St             9,500  12,000  44:56 

i  West  95th  St::::::::.: 9,000  13,000  4i:59 

65   West  95th   St 9,000  13,000  41:59 

$1,322,500  $1,726,500 


177 


SECTION  OF  SIDE  STREETS  EAST  OF  LEXINGTON  AVE. 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.34:61.66) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Ratio 


Address  r  ~       I      "^ 

Improvements  Land 

157  East  70th   St $8,000  ^000  19:81 

174  East  70th   St 3,500  5,500  18.8.. 

175  East  70th   St 6  000  5,000  29:71 

177  East  70th   St 3,000  ,000  2   :79 

179  East  70th   St 3,000  1,000  21:79 

181   East  70th   St 3,000  4,000  18:82 

146   East   71st   St 4,000  1,500  26:74 

148   East   71st   St 4.000  2,000  25:75 

150  East  71st   St 4,500  4,000  2278 

151  East   71st    St 3,500  2,000  23:77 

152  East  71st   St 5,000  4,500  26:74 

153  East   71st    St 3,500  1,000  24:76 

154  East   71st   St 6.000  8.000  25:75 

155  East   71st    St 14,000  8,000  36:64 

156  East  71st   St 6,000  8,000  25.75 

158  East   71st    St 9,000  8,000  33:67 

159  East   71st    St 7,000  8,000  28:72 

160  East  71st   St              5.500  14,500  27:73 

64   Ea      7  s     S 7,000  11,000           38.33:61.67 

66  ifst  71st  I: ::::::::::::: : 7:000  11,000     38.33:61.67 

168  East   71st   St 8,000  15,000  35.65 

169  East   71st   St 4,500  5,000  23:77 

170  East   71st   St 8,000  5,000  35:65 

171  East   71st   St 4,000  13,500  23:77 

172  East  71st   St 5,000  5,000  25:75 

181    East  71st   St 4.500  5.000  23.77 

183   East   71st    St 4.500  5,000  23:77 

185   East   71st   St 5,000  15,000  25:75 

187   East   71st   St 4.500  13.500  25:75 

145  East  72nd  St '  5.000  18,000  22:78 

152  East  72nd  St 10.000  20.000  33:67 

154  East  72nd   St 6,000  7.000  26:74 

156  East  72nd  St 6.000  6.000  27:73 

158  East  72nd   St 6,000  18.500  24:76 

160  East  72nd  St 6.000  8,500  24:76 

162  East  72nd  St 6,000  18.000  25:75 

164  East  72nd  St 6.000  8.000  25:75 

166  East  72nd  St 6,000  18.000  2575 

168  East  72nd  St 6.000  6,000  27:73 

170  East  72nd  St 6.000  6,000  27:73 

172  East  72nd  St 6.000  6.000  27:73 

174  Fast  72nd  St              6.000  16.000  27:73 

76  Fast  72nd  sl. 6.000  16.000  27:7.3 

178  East  72nd  St 6.000  ,     16,000  27:73 

149  Fast  73rd   St 42.000  70,000  37:63 

153  Fast  73rd  St 1.000  12,000  7:93 

155  Fast  73rd   St 1.000  12.000  7:93 

57  East  73rd   St 1.500  14.000  7:93 

170  Fast  73rd   St -  9,500  17.500  35:65 

171  Fast  73rd   St 2,000  2.500  14:86 

172  Fast  73rd   St 9,500  7.500  35:65 

175  Fast  73rd   St 2,500  2.500  14:86 

180  Fast  73rd   St 9.500  17.500  35:65 

181  Fast  73rd   St 2.000  12.500  4:86 

183  Fpst  73rd   St                     2,500  12.500  17:83 

184-6  Fast  73rd  St: :::::::: 7.000  28,000  20:80 

144  Fast   74th    St 5,000  20,000  20:80 

146  Fast  74th   St 4.000  13.000  24:76 

148  Fast  74th   .St 4.000  12.000  26:74 

150  Fast  74th    St                         4.000  11.000  27:73 

ITs  eS  74Jh  sl:::::::::::: 5.000  13,000  28:72 

178 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   EAST   OF   LEXINGTON   AVENUE— Continued 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ' ' n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

154  East  74th   St 14,500  $12,500  28:72 

155  East  74th   St 4,000  12,000  25:75 

156  East  74th   St 4,500  12,500  28:72 

157  East  74th   St 5,000  12,000  29:71 

158  East  74th   St 4,500  12,500  28:72 

159  East  74th   St 4,000  12,000  25:75 

168  East  74th   St 9,000  19,000  34:66 

170  East  74th   St 9.000  19,000  32:68 

172  East  74th   St..... 9,000  19,000  32:68 

148  East  78th   St 3,500  9,500  27:73 

149  East  78th   St 3,000  9,500  24:76 

150  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

151  East  78th   St 3,500  9,500  27:73 

152  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

153  East  78th   St 2,500  7,000  26:74 

154  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

155  East  78th   St 2,500  7,000  26:74 

156  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

157  East  78th   St 3,000  11,000  21:79 

158  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

159  East  78th   St 2,500  11,000  18:82 

160  East  78th   St 4,000  11,000  27:73 

161  East  78th   St 2,500  11,000  18:82 

163-5  East  78th  St 6,000  22,000  21 :79 

167  East  78th  St 3,000  11,000  21:79 

169  East  78th   St 3,000  11,000  21 :79 

171  East  78th   St 3,000  11,000  21:79 

173  East  78th   St 3,000  11.000  21:79 

175  East  78th   St 3.000  11.000  21 :7Q 

177  East  78th   St          3.000  11.000  21-79 

150  East  79th   St 3.500  11,500  23:77 

152  East  79th   .St 3,500  10,500  25:75 

154  East  79th   St 4,000  12,000  25:75 

158  East  79th   St 8,000  14.000  36:64 

160  East  79th   St 8,000  14,000  36:64 

162  East  79th   St 8,000  14.000  36-64 

164  East  79th   St 8,000  14,000  36:64 

168  East  79th   St 10,500  17,500  37:63 

170  East  79th   St 4,000  13.000  23:77 

172  East  79th   St 4.000  13.000  23:77 

174  East  79th   St 4.000  13,000  23:77 

176  East  79th   St 4,000  13,000  23:77 

178  East  79th   St 8.500  17.500  33:67 

180  East  79th   St 3,500  11,500  23:77 

182  East  79th   St 3,500  11,500  23:77 

184  East  79th   St 3,500  11,500  23:77 

$578,500  $1,570,000 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  -• * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

154  East  70th  St $57,000  $38,000  59:41 

155  East  70th  St 12,000  17,000  41:59 

158  East  70th   St 17,500  17,500  50:50 

159  East  70th  St 12,000  17,000  41:59 

160  East  70th   St 16,500  17,500  49:51 

161  East  70th   St 14,000  18,000  44:56 

162  East  70th   St 16,500  17.500  49:51 

163  East  70th  St 19,000  23,000  45:55 

179 


SECTION    OF   SIDE   STREETS   EAST  OF   LEXINGTON    AVENUE— Concluded 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  > ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

164  East  70th   St $14,500  $17,500  45:55 

165  East  70th   St 25,000  30,000  45:55 

168-72  East  70th  St 65,000  55,000  54:46 

169  East  70th  St 13,000  15,000  46:54 

171   East  70th   St 11,000  15,000  42:58 

176  East  70th   St 16,000  16,000  50:50 

157   East  71st   St 19,000  18,000  51:49 

161  East  71st   St 9,000  13,500  40:60 

162  East   71st   St 17,500  14,500  55:45 

163  East  71st   St 9,000  13,500  40:60 

165   East   71st    St 14,000  15,000  48:52 

167  East  71st   St 13,000  15,000  46:54 

173-75  East  71st  St 33,000  27,000  55:45 

177  East  71st   St 16,000  18,000  47:53 

179  East  71st   St 26,000  18,000  59:41 

147  East  72nd  St 12,000  18,000  40:60 

149  East  72nd  St 15,000  18,000  45:55 

151    East   72nd    St 15,000  18,000  45:55 

180  East    72nd    St 18,000  22,000  45:55 

160-2  East  73rd  St 45,000  46,000  49:51 

164  East  73rd   St 35,000  30,000  54:46 

168  East  73rd  St 15,500  17,500  47:53 

173  East  73rd   St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

178  East  73rd  St 15,500  17,500  47:53 

182  East  73rd  St 13,500  17,500  44:56 

151  East  74th   St 9.000  13,000  41:59 

152  East  74th   St 23,000  11,000  68:32 

160  East  74th   St 18,500  12,500  60:40 

161  East  74th   St 15,500  13,500  53:47 

162  East  74th   St 17,500  12,500  58:42 

163  East  74th  St ^ 14,500  13,500  52:48 

164  East  74th  St 17,500  12,500  58:42 

165  East  74th   St 14,500  13,500  52:48 

166  East  74th  St 17.500  12,500  58:42 

167  East  74th   St 14,500  13,500  52:48 

169  East  74th   St 14,500  13,500  52:48 

162  East  78th   St 11,000  11,000  50:50 

164  East  78th   St 13.000  15,000  46:54 

166  East  78th   St 13,000  15,000  46:54 

$872,000  $866,000 


180 


Ratio 


SECTION  IN  WASHINGTON  SQUARE  DISTRICT 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.34:61.66) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

-  Assessed  Values 

Address                               '  I       p 

Improvements  Land 

=5  79  W    9th  St                $10,000  $109,000  8:92 

6  West' 9th  St  2,000  22,000  8:92 

8  We      9h  S 2500  28,500  8.92 

10  We      9th  S 1500  22,000  6:94 

I  We      9th  S :             2000  15,500  11:89 

12  Wes    9h  St 3000  27,000  10:90 

?  Wes    9h  S 2000  15,500  11:89 

4  W?s    9th  S 1500  20,500  7:93 

l^^S'lhi;::::::::::::: •• 2:000  15,500  ii:89 

l^^S^Ehl:::::::::::: 3000  20000  13:8 

24  West  9th  St 2,500  20,000  11.89 

25  West  9th  St 2,500  16,000  3  87 

26  West  9th  St 2,500  20,000  1189 

97  West  9th   St                      3,500  14,000  ZU.»U 

i  We  91,  s ':::::       2:500  20,000  ii:89 

29  Wes    9      S                   2.500  14,000  15:85 

iwS«;l::;::;:::: 2,500  20,™  ii89 

MWe     9h|-'::::                    2,500  14,500  15:8S 

MwesJgShil 2,000  20,000                     9:9 

cc  W("it  9th   St                      2,500  14,500  15.K3 

36Wes9hS ,,   2000  20,000                     9:91 

^7wS9thS  2500  14.S0O  15:85 

S  wS't  9*  11: ;::::::::::;;: ; woo  i4,5oo  i5:85 

tswSg*!::::::::: 2,5(»  iwoo  um 

2wS'tl!l:sl::;::::::: 2,500  20,000  ii:89 

53  West  9th  St                    2,500  13,500  16:84 

^4  Wes    9h  S 2,500  13,500  16:84 

55WS9SI;::::::::: 2,000  17,000  11:89 

56  West  9th  St                  2,500  13,500  16:84 

57  We      9      S 2,000  17,000  11:89 

58  Wes    9      S 2,500  13,500  16:84 

59  We      9      S .     2,000  17,000  11-89 

eow^sl^SI::::::::::: 3.000  20000  13  87 

61  West  9th  St 500  7.000                      3  97 

63  West  9th  St 500  7.000                      3  97 

65  West  9th  St             500  17.000                        3:97 

67West9thS 1.000  17.000                       6:94 

7  We      iSh  si ::               2,700  24.300  10:90 

8  We      lOth  S  ■■■;               10000  28.000  26:74 

9  We       OS                       3.000  25.500  11-89 

10 We    OS ::::::::  lo.ooo  28.000  26:74 

1  13  West  10th  St            ". 20.000  55.000  27 -.73 

II  West  lOth  St        .              18,000  34.000  35-65 

4  wS    Oh  S 17,500  36.500  33:67 

15  We       Oh  St ::         .       8.000  26.000  24:76 

ewsSiShsl:::::: is.ooo  37.000  33:67 

17  West  lOth  St                 9.500  25,500  27:73 

8  Wes      Oh  S  ■■■■■.■■.            15,000  28.000  35:65 

9  W?t    Oh  S 9,600  25.500  26:74 

20  We^      Oh  St 5.000  18.000  22:78 

2?  wesl  loth  I;::::: 10,000  26.000  28:72 

?7  Wpc^t  10th  St                   5.000  17,500  zz-./a 

iwSiottl:::::::: woo  28,500  2575 

94  West  10th  St                5.000  17.500  22:78 

is  weslJolKs;: :::::: 5,500  22,000  20:80 

181 


SECTION   OF   WASHINGTON   SQUARE   DISTRICT— Continued 


Group  A: 


Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


26  Wes 

27  Wes 

28  Wes! 

29  Wes 

30  Wes 

32  Wes 

33  Wes 

34  Wes; 

35  Wes 

36  Wes 

37  Wes 

39  Wes 

40  Wes 

41  Wes 

43  Wes 

44  Wes 
46  Wes 
48  Wes 
56  Wes 
58  Wes 


59-67  West  10th  St 


69  Wes 

10  Wes 

11  Wes 

13  Wes 

14  Wes 

15  Wes 

16  Wes- 

17  Wes 

18  Wes- 

19  Wes 

20  Wes 

21  Wes 

22  Wes 

23  Wes 

24  Wes 

25  Wes' 

26  Wes' 
28  Wesi 
30  Wes 
32  Wes 

34  Wes 

35  Wes 
37  Wes 

39  Wes 

40  Wes 

41  Wes 

42  Wes 

43  Wes 

44  Wes 
46  Wes 

48  Wes 

49  Wes 

50  Wes 

51  Wes 

52  Wes 
54  Wes 
60  Wes 
62  Wes 
64  Wes 
66  Wes 
68  Wes 
71  Wes 


0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 

0th  St. 


0th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 

1th  St. 


Improvements 
, . .  $4,000 
5,500 
4,000 
5,000 
4,000 
4,000 
3,500 
6,000 
3,000 
5,000 
6,500 
3,500 
4,000 
5,500 
3,500 
4,500 
4,500 
2,000 
2,500 
4,000 
12,000 
2,000 
3.000 
3,000 
1,500 
3,500 
1,000 
3,500 
1,000 
3,500 
1,000 
3,500 
2,000 
3,500 
2,000 
3,500 
2,000 
3,500 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
2,500 
2,500 
3,000 
3,500 
3,500 
3,500 
3,000 
3.500 
4,000 
4,000 
1,000 
3,000 
1,000 
2,000 
2.000 
2,000 
2,000 
2.500 
2.500 
2.500 
3,000 


Land 
1 16,000 
22,000 
16,000 
22,000 
16.000 
16,000 
21,500 
16,000 
17,500 
17,500 
20,500 
20,500 
19.000 
20,500 
20,500 
17,500 
17,500 
17.500 
17,500 
17,500 
88,000 
12.000 
<26.000 
22,000 
16,500 
19,000 
18.500 
19,000 
19.000 
19.000 
19,000 
19,000 
19.000 
19.000 
19.000 
19.000 
19.000 
19.000 
21,000 
19.000 
18.500 
18.500 
21.500 
20,500 
20,000 
17,500 
21.000 
17.500 
21.000 
17.500 
17.500 
17.500 
22,000 
17,500 
22.000 
18,500 
18.500 
18.500 
19,000 
18,500 
18.500 
18.500 
21.000 


Ratio 

20:80 
20:80 
20:80 
19:81 
20:80 
20:80 
14:86 
27-73 
15:85 
22:78 
24:76 
15:85 
17:83 
21:79 
15:85 
20:80 
20:80 
10:90 
12:88 
19:81 
10:90 
14:86 
10:90 
12:88 

5:95 
16:84 

5:95 
16:84 

5:95 
16:84 

5:95 
16:84 
10:90 
16:84 
10:90 
16:84 
10:90 
16:84 
19:81 
17:83 
18:82 
18:82 
10:90 
11:89 
13:87 
17:83 
11:89 
17:83 
13:87 
17:83 
19:81 
15:85 

4:96 
15:85 

4:96 
10:90 
10-90 
10:90 
10:90 
12:88 
12:88 
12:88 
13:87 


$518,300 
182 


$2,660,800 


MOUNT   MORRIS   PARK   SECTION 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  88.34:61.66) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               ^      "  ~      7^ 

Improvements  Land 

104  West  119th  St $4,700  $9,300 

106  West  119th  St 5700  9.300 

108  West  119th  St 5.700  9,300 

110  West  119th  St ^.700  9,300 

112  West  119th  St 5.700  9.300 

114  West  119th  St 6,600  10,400 

116  West  119th  St ^.700  9,300 

118  West  119th  St 5,700  9,300 

120  West  119th  St 5700  9,300 

122  West  119th  St 5,700  9,300 

146  West  119th  St 4.700  9,300 

147  West  119th  St 5.600  10,400 

148  West  119th  St 4.700  9,300 

149  West  119th  St 5,600  10,400 

150  West  119th  St 4,700  9,300 

151  West  I19th  St 5,600  10,400 

152  West  119th  St 4,700  9.300 

153  West  119th  St 5,600  10,400 

154  West  119th  St 4,700  9,300 

155  West  119th  St 4.600  10.400 

156  West  119th  St 4,700  9,300 

158  West  119th  St 4.200  8.800 

3  West  120th  St 7,000  5,000 

5  West  120th  St 7.000  3  000 

7  West  120th  St 6,500  3,500 

9  West  120th  St 5,000  ,500 

11  West  120th  St 5,000  ,500 

13  West  120th  St 5,500  1,500 

15  West  120th  St 6,000  3.000 

17  West  120th  St 5,500  3,000 

19  West  120th  St 6,000  3,000 

21  West  120th  St 5,500  3,000 

23  West  120th  St 6.000  3.000 

25  West  120th  St 6,000  13,000 

102  West  120th  St 5,700  9,300 

104  West  120th  St 5,700  9,300 

106  West  120th  St 5,700  9,300 

108  West  120th  St 5.700  9,300 

110  West  120th  St 5,700  9,300 

127  West  120th  St 6.600  0.900 

129  West  120th  St 6.600  0,900 

131  West  120th  St 6.100  10,100 

134  West  120th  St 3.700  9,300 

136  West  120th  St 3.700  9,300 

138  West  120th  St 3700  9,300 

140  West  120th  St 3,200  8,800 

142  West  120th  St 3,700  9,300 

144  West  120th  St 3,700  9,300 

146  West  120th  St 3700  9,300 

148  West  120th  St 3,400  8,600 

150  West  120th  St 3  400  8,600 

152  West  120th  St 3,400  8,600 

155  West  120th  St 3,500  8,500 

157  West  120th  St 3.500  8.500 

159  West  120th  St 2.500  9.000 

14  West  121st  St 5.500  2.500 

16  W^est  121st  St 6.500  2,500 

18  West  121st  St 6.500  2,500 

20  West  121st  St 5.500  2.500 

22  West  121st  St 6.500  2,500 

26  West  121st  St 7,500  12,500 


Ratio 

33:67 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38.82:61.18 
38:62 
38-62 
38:62 
38:62 
33:67 
35:65 
33:67 
35:65 
33:67 
35:65 
33:67 
35:65 
33 :67 
31:69 
33:67 
32:68 
32:68 
31.1:61.9 
32:68 
30:70 
30:70 
32:68 
32-68 
30:70 
32:68 
30:70 
32:68 
32:68 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
38:62 
36:64 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
27:73 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
28:72 
29:71 
2971 
28:72 
31:69 
34:66 
34:66 
31:69 
34:66 
37:63 


183 


MOUNT    MORRIS   PARK   SECTIOISI— Continued 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              , * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

101   West  121st  St 16,500  $10,500           38.24:61.76 

105  West  121st  St 4,200  7,800  35:65 

111  West  121st  St 4,200  7,800  35:65 

135  West  121st  St 6,200  10,800  36:64 

137  West  121st  St 6,200  10,800  36:64 

139  West  121st  St 6,200  10,800  36:64 

141  West  121st  St 6,200  10,800  36:64 

143  West  121st  St 6,800  110,800           38.28:61.72 

145  West  121st  St 6,800  10,800           38.28:61.72 

147  West  121st  St 6,100  10,400  37:63 

149  West  121st  St 6,100  10,400  37:63 

159  West  121st  St 5,700  9,300  38:62 

164  West  121st  St 4,200  7,800  35:65 

4  West   122nd   St 9,000  16,000  36:64 

6  West   122nd   St 6,500  12,500  34:66 

7  West   122nd   St 7,500  12,500  37:63 

8  West   122nd   St 7,000  13,000  35:65 

9  West   122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

11  West   122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

12  West  122nd   St 7,000  13,000  35:65 

13  West   122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

14  West   122nd   St 7,000  13,000  35:65 

15  West  122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

16  West   122nd   St 7,.500  12,500  37:63 

17  West  122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

19  West   122nd   St 6,000  12,000  33:67 

21    West   122nd   St 7,500  12.500  37:63 

104  West   122nd   St 3,500  11,000  29:71 

106  West   122nd   St 5,200  8,800  37:63 

108  West   122nd   St 4,700  9,300  38:62 

110  West   122nd   St 4,700  9,300  38:62 

112  West   122nd   St 4,700  9,300  38:62 

114  West   122nd   St 4,700  9,300  38:62 

116  West   122nd   St 4.700  9,300  38:62 

118  West   122nd   St 4.700  9,300  38:62 

120  West   122nd   St 5.700  9,800  37:63 

122  West   122nd   St 5,700  9,300  38:62 

124  West  122nd   St 5,700  9.800  37:63 

126  West   122nd   St 5,700  9,800  37:63 

128  West   122nd   St 5,700  9,800  37:63 

130  West   122nd   St 5,700  9.800  37:63 

138  West  122nd   St 5,000  9,000  36:64 

140  West   122nd   St 5,000  9,000  36:64 

142  West   122nd   St 6,100  10,900  36:64 

144  West   122nd   St 5.000  9,000  36:64 

146  West   122nd   St 5,000  9,000  36:64 

148  West   122nd   St 5,000  9,000  36:64 

2  West  123rd  St 6,000  13,000  32:68 

3  West  123rd  St 5,000  12,500  29:71 

4  West  123rd  St 4,000  10.500  28:72 

5  West  123rd  St 4,000  12,000  25:75 

6  West  123rd  St 4,000  10.500  28:72 

7  West  123rd  St 5,000  12.000  29:71 

8  West  123rd  St 4,000  10.500  28:72 

9  West  123rd  St 3,000  12,000  20:80 

10  West  123rd  St 4.000  10.500  28:72 

11  West  123rd  St 1.500  7.500  17:83 

12  West  123rd  St 4,000  10,500  28:72 

13  West  123rd  St 1.500  7.500  17:83 

14  We.st  123rd  St 4,000  10,500  2872 

16  West  123rd  St 3,500  11,000  2476 

17  West  123rd  St 2.500  10.500  19:81 

18  We.st  123rd  St 4.000  10.500  28:72 

184 


MOUNT   MORRIS   PARK  SECTION— Continued 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' ' '  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

19  West  123rd  St $3,500  $10,500  25:75 

20  West  123rd  St 4,000  0,500  28  72 

o-\    West  123rd  St                        2,500  10,500  iv  «l 

i  w  si  lird  il:: ::::::::::: : 4:000  10,500  28  72 

24  West  123rd  St 4,000  10,500  28:72 

26  West  123rd  St 4,000  ,500  26:74 

102  West  123rd  St 5,000  1,000  31:69 

103  West  123rd  St 5.500  10,500  34:66 

104  West  123rd  St 5,600  0,400  35:65 

106  West   123rd   St 1,600  10,400  13:87 

108  West   123rd   St 5  600  0,400  35.65 

110  West  123rd   St 5  600  0.400  35.65 

112  West   123rd   St 5.600  0,400  35:65 

113  West   123rd    St 6.100  0,400  f-.ej 

114  West  123rd  St 5.600  0.400  35.65 

116  West   123rd    St ^,600  0.400  35-65 

117  West   123rd   St 6,100  10,400  37:63 

118  West  123rd   St 5.600  0.400  35-65 

119  West   123rd   St 6,100  10,400  37:63 

120  West   123rd   St 5.600  10.400  35:65 

121  West   123rd   St 5,900  0,100  37:63 

122  West   123rd   St 5,600  10.400  35:65 

123  West   123rd   St 5,300  9,700  35:65 

124  West   123rd   St 900  8,600  10:90 

125  West   123rd   St 5.500  10.000  35:65 

126  West  123rd   St 900  8.600  10:90 

127  West   123rd   St       5.300  9.700  35:65 

ii  West  123rd  s?^::::: $900  8.600  10:% 

129  West  123rd   St 5.800  9.700  37.63 

130  West  123rd  St 5,000  14,000  26:74 

132  West  123rd  St 3.700  8,800  30:70 

134  West  123rd  St 3  700  8.300  31:69 

136  West  123rd  St 3,400  9,  00  27:73 

138  West  123rd  St 1,600  8.400  6:84 

140  West  123rd  St 1,400  8,600  4:86 

142  West  123rd  St 1.400  8.600  14:86 

144  West  123rd  St 3.400  9.  00  27:73 

145  West   123rd   St 6.100  10.400  37:63 

146  West  123rd  St 3.700  8.800  30:70 

148  West  123rd  St 3.700  8,800  30:70 

149  West   123rd   St 5.600  10,400  35:65 

150  West  123rd  St 3,700  8,800  30:70 

152  West  123rd  St 3.700  8.300  31:69 

153  West   123rd   St 4.700  8.800  35:65 

154  West  123rd  St 3.800  8.200  32-68 

155  West   123rd   St 4.700  8.800  35:65 

156  West  123rd  St 4.500  7.500  37:6.3 

157  West   123rd   St 4.700  8.800  35:65 

158  West  123rd  St 3.300  7.200  31:69 

159  West   123rd   St 4.700  9.800  32:68 

160  West  123rd  St 3.300  7.200  31-69 

161  West   123rd   St 3.400  8.100  30-70 

162  West  123rd  St 3.300  7.200  31:69 

163  West   123rd   St 4.000  10,000  29:71 

164  West  123rd  St 3.300  7.200  3   :69 

166  West  123rd  St 3.300  7.200  31:69 

168  West  123rd  St 3.500  8.000  30:70 

54  West  124th   St 2,000  2,000  4:86 

56  West  124th   St 2.500  2.000  7:83 

58  West   124th   St        2.500  12.000  17:83 

60  WestmhSt.:: 2.000  12,000  14:86 

78  West  124th  St 3.000  15.000  17:83 

185 


MOUNT    MORRIS   PARK   SECTION— Continued 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  / '' \ 

Improvements  Land 

1  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

2  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

3  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

4  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

5  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

10  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

11  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

12  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

13  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

14  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

26  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

27  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

28  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

29  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

30  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

32  Mt.  Morris  Ave..  W 

33  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 

34  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 


Ratio 


$9,000 

$24,000 

27:73 

7,000 

15,000 

32:68 

7,000 

15,000 

32:68 

7,000 

15,000 

32:68 

7,000 

15,000 

32:68 

11,000 

26,000 

30:70 

9,000 

28,000 

24:76 

8,000 

18,000 

31:69 

8,000 

18,000 

31:69 

10,000 

20,000 

33-67 

1,500 

14.500 

9:91 

3,000 

14,000 

28:82 

3,000 

14,000 

28:82 

3,000 

14,000 

28:82 

3,000 

22.000 

12:88 

10,000 

20,000 

33:67 

10,000 

20,000 

33:67 

10,000 

20,000 

33:67 

$1,015,200 

$2,237,200 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


105 

West  1 

107  West  1 

109 

West  1 

111 

West  1 

113 

West  1 

115 

West  1 

117 

West  1 

119 

West  1 

121 

West  1 

123 

West  1 

125  West  1 

127 

West  1 

129  West  1 

131 

West  1 

1.33 

West  1 

135 

West  1 

]37 

West  1 

US 

West  1 

147  West  1 

149  West  1 

151 

West  1 

153 

West  1 

155 

West  1 

157  West  1 

103 

West  1 

105 

West  1 

107 

West  1 

109  West  1 

111 

West  1 

113 

West  1 

115 

West  1 

117 

West  1 

119 

West  1 

121 

West  1 

123 

West  1 

124 

West  1 

Assessed  Values 

Address  r '" 

Improvements 

118th  St $9,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10.600 

118th  St 10.600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 10,600 

118th  St 8,700 

118th  St 8,700 

118th  St 9,700 

118th  St 9,200 

118th  St 8.700 

118th  St 8.700 

118th  St 8.700 

119th  St 6.400 

119th  St 7,400 

119th  St 6,400 

119th  St 8.200 

119th  St 8,200 

119th  St 8,200 

119th  St 7.700 

119th  St 10.600 

119th  St 10,600 

119th  St 10,600 

119th  St 10,600 

119ai  St 6,600 


Ratio 


Land 


$10,400 

48:52 

10,400 

50:. SO 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10.400 

50:50 

10.400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

9,300 

48:52 

9,300 

48:52 

9,300 

51:49 

8,800 

51:49 

9,300 

48-52 

9,300 

48:52 

9,300 

48:52 

8,600 

43:57 

8,600 

47:54 

8,600 

43:.S7 

9.800 

46:54 

9,800 

46:54 

9,800 

46:54 

9,300 

45:55 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:. 50 

9,300 

42:58 

186 


MOUNT    MORRIS   PARK   SECTION— Continued 
Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 


125  West  119th 

126  West  119th 

127  West  119th 

128  West  119th 

129  West  119th 

130  West  119th 

131  West  119th 

132  West  119th 

133  West  119th 

134  West  119th 

135  West  119th 

136  West  119th 

137  West  119th 

138  West  119th 

139  West  119th 

140  West  119th 

141  West  119th 

142  West  119th 

143  West  119th 

144  West  119th 

145  West  119th 
107  West  120th 
109  West  120th 

111  West  120th 

112  West  120th 

113  West  120th 

114  West  120th 

115  West  120th 

116  West  120th 

117  West  120th 

118  West  120th 

119  West  120th 

120  West  120th 

121  West  120th 

122  West  120th 

123  W>st  120th 

124  West  120th 

125  West  120th 

126  West  120th 
128  West  120th 
133  West  120th 
135  West  120th 
137  West  120th 
139  West  120th 
141  West  120th 
143  West  120th 
145  West  120th 
147  West  120th 
149  West  120th 
151  West  120th 

153  West  120th 

154  West  120th 
156  West  120th 
158  West  120th 
160  West  120th 
162  West  120th 
164  West  120th 

1  West  121st 

3  West  121st 

4  West  121st 

5  West  121st 

6  West  121st 

7  West  121st 


Address  r  ' 

Improvements 

St $10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

10,600 

6,600 

7,100 

7,100 

7,600 

7,100 

7,600 

7,100 

7,600 

8,100 

7,200 

7,100 

7.200 

7,600 

7.600 

8,100 

7.200 

8,100 

7,200 

7,200 

6.600 

6.600 

6,600 

6,600 

6,600 

6.700 

6.700 

6.700 

6.700 

6.700 

6.700 

6.400 

6.400 

6.400 

6.400 

6,400 

6,400 

10.000 

9,500 

9.500 

8.500 

9.500 

9,000 


Ratio 


Land 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:. 50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:. SO 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

50:50 

10,400 

38.82:61.18 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

42:.S8 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

42:58 

10,400 

44:56 

9,800 

42:58 

10,400 

41:59 

9,800 

42:58 

10.400 

42:. 58 

10.400 

42-58 

10.400 

44-56 

9.800 

42:58 

10.400 

44:56 

9.800 

42:58 

9,800 

42:58 

10,400 

38.82:61.18 

10,400 

38.82:61.18 

10,400 

38.82:61.18 

10,400 

38.82:61.18 

10.400 

38.82:61.18 

9.800 

41 :59 

9.800 

41:59 

9.800 

41:.59 

9,800 

41:59 

9,300 

42:58 

9,300 

42:58 

8,600 

43:57 

8.600 

43:57 

8.600 

43:. 57 

8.600 

43:57 

8.600 

43:57 

8,600 

43:57 

13.000 

43:57 

12.500 

43:57 

12,500 

43:57 

12.500 

40:60 

12.500 

43:57 

13,000 

41:59 

187 


8 

West  i: 

9  West  i: 

10 

West  L 

11 

West  i: 

12 

West  i: 

13 

West  i: 

15 

West  h 

17 

West  i: 

19  West  i: 

21 

West  i: 

102 

West  i: 

103 

West  \: 

104 

West  \: 

106 

West  i: 

107 

West  i: 

108 

West  i: 

109 

West  i: 

110 

West  i: 

112 

West  1^ 

113 

West  i: 

115 

West  1^ 

116 

West  1^ 

117 

West  i: 

118 

West  i: 

119 

West  Iz 

120  West  \: 

121 

West  K 

122 

West  K 

123 

West  i: 

124 

West   i: 

125 

West  i: 

126 

West   i: 

127 

West  1^ 

128 

West   \1 

129 

West   1^ 

130 

West   U 

131 

West  1^ 

132 

West   1^ 

133 

West  U 

134  West  U 

136 

West  i: 

138  West  U 

140 

West  i: 

142 

West  1^ 

144  West  \: 

146 

West   li 

148 

West  Iz 

150 

West  1^ 

151 

West  i: 

152 

West  12 

153 

West  12 

154 

West  i: 

155 

West  12 

156 

West   12 

157 

West   12 

158 

West   12 

160 

West  12 

162 

West  12 

10 

West   1 

18 

West   1 

105 

West    1 

107 

West   1 

109 

West   1 

MOUNT   MORRIS   PARK   SECTION— Continued 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased. 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              ■/ " \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

121st  St $9,500  $12,500  43:57 

121st  St 8,000  12,000  40:60 

121st  St 9,500  12,500  43:57 

121st  St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

121st  St 9,500  12.500  43:57 

121st  St 8,000  12,000  40:60 

121st  St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

121st  St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

121st  St 8,500  12,500  40:60 

121st  St 9,000  13,000  41:59 

121st  St 8,500  11,500  42:58 

121st  St 5,900  9,100  39:61 

121st  St 7,600  10,400  42:58 

121st  St 8,100  10,900  43:57 

121st  St 5,900  9,100  39:61 

121st  St 8,100  10,900  43:57 

121st  St 5,900  9,100  39:61 

121st  St 7,600  10,400  42:58 

121st  St 11,600  11,400  50:50 

121st  St 5,900  9,100  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 9,600  10,400  48:52 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 10,100  10,400  49:51 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 9,600  10,400  48:52 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 10,600  10,400  50:50 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

21st  St 10,600  10,400  50:50 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 9,600  10,400  49:51 

121st  St 6.600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 10,600  10,400  50:50 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St ,10,600  10,400  50:50 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.83:61.17 

121st   St 10  100  10.400  49:51 

121st  St 6,600  10.400  38.83:61.17 

121st  St 9.100  10,400  47:53 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.82:61.18 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.82:61.18 

121st  St 6.600  10,400  38.82:61.18 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.82:61.18 

121st  St 6,600  10,400  38.82:61.18 

121st  St 7,700  9,300  45:55 

121st  St 7,700  9,300  45:55 

121st  St 7,700  9,300  45:55 

121st  St 6.200  9.800  38.75:61.25 

121st  St 7,700  9,300  45:55 

121st  St 6.200  9.800  38.75:61.25 

121st  St 7,700  9,300  45:55 

121st  St 6,200  9,800  38.75:61.25 

121st  St 6,700  9,300  42:58 

121st  St 6.200  9.300  40:60 

121st  St 6.700  9,300  42:58 

121st  St 6,200  8.800  41:59 

121st   St 6.200  8,800  41:59 

122nd   St 9.500  13.500  41:59 

122nd   St 8,600  5.400  61.4:38.6 

122nd   St 6.200  9.800  38.75:62.25 

122nd   St 6.200  9.800  38.75:62.25 

122nd   St 6.200  9.800  38.75:62.25 


188 


MOUNT   MORRIS   PARK  SECTION— Concluded 

Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              ^ " ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

111  West  122nd  St $6,200  $9,800  38.75:62.25 

115  West  122nd  St 8,600  10,400  45:55 

131  West  122nd  St 9,000  14,000  44:56 

132  West  122nd  St 6,400  9,600  40.60 

133  West  122nd  St 6.400  8,600  43:57 

134  West  122nd  St 7,500  9,300  44:56 

135  W^est  122nd  St 6,400  8,600  43:57 

136  West  122nd  St 6,300  9,200  40:60 

137  West  122nd  St 6,400  8,600  43:57 

139  West  122nd  St 6,400  8,600  43:57 

141  West  122nd  St 6,400  8,600  43:57 

143  West  122nd  St 6,400  8,600  43:57 

147  West  122nd  St 7,600  10,400  42:58 

150  West  122nd  St 7,200  9,800  42:58 

151  West  122nd  St 6,600  10,400  38.78:61.22 

152  West  122nd  St 9,200  9,800  48:52 

154  West  122nd  St 7,200  9,800  42:58 

156  West  122nd  St 6,700  9,300  41:59 

158  West  122nd  St 6,700  9,300  41:59 

160  West  122nd  St 7,200  9,800  42:58 

162  West  122nd  St 7,200  9.800  42:58 

164  West   122nd  St 7,200  9,800  42:58 

165  West  122nd   St 7,500  9.500  44:56 

28  West  123rd  St 5,500  7,500  42:56 

30  West  123rd  St 5,500  7,500  42:56 

6  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 11,000  16.000  41  -59 

7  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 11,000  16,000  41  :.59 

8  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 11,000  16,000  41  :S9 

9  Mt.  Morris  Ave.,  W 11,000  16,000  41 :59 

$1,579,300  $1,963,900 


II.    THE  BRONX 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  NINE,  BOROUGH  OF 
THE  BRONX 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.71:61.29) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  t ^ n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

286  Willis   Ave $5,000  $10,000  33:67 

288  Willis   Ave 6,000  10,000  37:63 

290  Willis  Ave 3,500  10,000  26:74 

292  Willis   Ave 3,500  10,000  26:74 

294  Willis   Ave 2,700  6,000  31:69 

296  Willis  Ave 2,500  6,000  29:71 

298  Willis  Ave 4,000  9,000  31:69 

340  Willis   Ave 4,000  7,000  36:64 

342  Willis   Ave 4,000  7,000  36:64 

352  Willis  Ave 5,000  9,000  36:64 

409  East  141st  St 1,500  4,500  25:75 


$41,700 


,500 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  < * n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

403  East  139th   St R500  $3,000  60:40 

405  East  139th  St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

407  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

409  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

411  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

413  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

415  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

417  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

419  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

421  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

423  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

425  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

427  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

429  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

431  East  139th   St 3.000  3,000  50:50 

433  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

435  East  139th   St 3,000  3.000  50:50 

437  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

439  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

441  East  139th   St 3,000  3.000  50:50 

443  East  139th   St 3,000  3.000  50:50 

445  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:.S0 

447  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

449  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

451  East  139th   St 3.000  3,000  50:50 

453  East  139th   St 3.000  3,000  50:50 

455  East  139th   St 3,000  3.000  50:50 

457  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

459  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

461  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

463  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

465  East  139th   St 3.000  3.000  50:50 

467  East  139th   St 3,000  3.000  50:50 

469  East  139th    St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

471  East  139th   St 3.000  3,000  50-50 

473  East  139th   St 3,000  3,000  50:50 

475  East  139th   St 3.000  3,000  50:50 


190 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ' " 7  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

477  East   139tli   St 13,000 

479  East   139th   St 3,000 

481   East   139th   St 3,000 

483   East   139th   St 3,000 

485   East  139th  St 3,000 

487  East   139th   St 3,000 

489  East  139th   St 3,000 

491   East  139th   St 3,000 

493  East  139th  St 3,000 

495  East   139th   St 3,000 

497  East   139th   St 3,000 

499  East  139th   St 3,000 

501   East  139th   St 4,500 

404  East   140th   St 3,500 

406  East   140th   St 4,500 

408  East   140th   St 3,000 

410  East  140th   St 3.000 

412  East   140th    St 3,000 

414  East   140th   St 3,000 

416   East   140th   St 3,000 

418  East   140th   St 3,000 

420  East   140th   St 3,000 

422  East   140th   St 3,000 

424  East   140th   St 3,000 

426  East   140th   St 3,000 

428  East   140th    St 3,000 

430  East  140th  St 3,000 

432   East   140th   St 3,000 

434  East  140th   St 3,000 

436  East  140th   St 3,000 

438  East   140th   St 3,000 

440  East   140th    St 3,000 

442  East   140th   St 3,000 

444  East   140th   St 3,000 

446  East   140th   St 3,000 

448   East   140th   St 3,000 

450  East  140th   St 3,000 

452  East   140th   St 3,000 

454  East   140th   St 3,000 

456  East   140th   St 3,000 

458  East  140th   St 3,000 

460  East   140th   St 3,000 

462  East  140th   St 3.000 

464  East   140th   St 3,000 

466  East   140th   St 3.000 

468  East   140th   St 3,000 

470  East   140th   St 3,000 

472  East   140th   St 3.000 

474  East   140th   St 3.000 

476  East   140th   St 3,000 

478  East   140th   St 3.000 

480  East   140th   St 3.000 

482  East   140th   St 3.000 

484  East   140th   St 3.000 

486  East   140th   St 3.000 

488  East  140th   St 3.000 

490  East   140th   St 3.000 

492  East   140th   St 3,000 

494  East   140th   St 3.000 

496  East   140th   St 3.000 

498  East  140th   St 3,000 

500  East   140th   St 3.000 

502  East  140th   St 3.000 

504  East  140th  St 4,500 

191 


$3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

60:40 

2,000 

64:36 

3,000 

60:40 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:. SO 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:. 50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:. SO 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3.000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50-50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:. SO 

3,000 

50:50 

3.000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3.000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3.000 

50:50 

3,000 

50:50 

3.000 

50:50 

3,000 

60:40 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  , — ^ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

344  Willis  Ave $4,000 

346  Willis  Ave 4  000 

348  Willis  Ave 4000 

350  Willis   Ave 4000 

405   East   141st   St 1400 

407   East   141st   St 1400 

411   East   141st   St 3800 

413   East    141st   St 2,500 

415   East   141st   St 2,500 

417   East   141st   St 2  500 

419   East   141st    St 2^500 

421    East   141st   St 2,500 

423   East   141st   St 2  700 

425   East   141st   St 2  700 

427   East   141st   St 2^700 

429  East   141st   St 2  700 

431    East   141st   St 2  700 

433   East   141st   St 2  700 

435   East   141st   St 2  700 

437   East   141st   St 2  700 

439  East   141st   St 2,700 

441    East   141st   St 2,700 

443   East   141st   St 2  700 

445   East   141st   St 2700 

447  East   141st   St 2  700 

449  East   141st   St 2,700 

451    East   141st   St 2  700 

453   East    141st    St '.  2,700 

455   East   141st   St 2,700 

457   East   141st   St 2,700 

459  East   141st   St 2,700 

461    East   141st   St 2,700 

463   East   141st   St 2,700 

465   East   141st    St 2,700 

467  East   141st   St 2700 

469  East   141st   St 2"700 

471   East   141st   St 2  700 

473   East   141st   St 2700 

475   East   141st   St '. .  2  700 

477   East   141st   S't 2  700 

479  East   141st   St 2,700 

4S1    East   141st   St 2  700 

483   East   141st   St 2  700 

485   East   141st   St 2  700 

487  East   141st   St 2*700 

489  East   141st   St 2  700 

404  East  142nd  St 2  850 

406  East  142nd  St 2'.750 

408  East  142nd  St 2.700 

410  East  142nd  St 2  700 

412  East  142nd  St 2,700 

414  East  142nd  St 2,700 

416  East  142nd  St 2,700 

418  East  142nd  St 2  700 

420  East  142nd  St 2.700 

422  East  142nd  St 2  200 

424  East  142nd  St 2  200 

426  East  142nd  St 2  200 

428  East  142nd  St 2^600 

430  East  142nd  St 3,000 

432  East  142nd  St 2  600 

434  East  142nd  St 2  600 

436  East  142nd  St 2  600 

438  East  142nd  St 2,700 

192 


$6,000 

40:60 

6,000 

40:60 

6,000 

40:60 

6,000 

40:60 

2,200 

39:61 

2,200 

39:61 

3,000 

56:44 

3,000 

45:55 

3,000 

45:55 

3.000 

45:55 

3,000 

45:55 

3,000 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,400 

44:56 

/3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3,300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

3.300 

45:55 

2.850 

50:50 

2,950 

48:52 

3.000 

47:53 

3.000 

47:53 

3,000 

47:53 

3,000 

47:53 

3,000 

47-53 

3,000 

47:53 

3,000 

47:53 

3,000 

42:58 

3,000 

42:58 

3,000 

42:58 

2,700 

49:51 

2,700 

53-47 

2,700 

49:51 

2,700 

49:51 

2,700 

49:51 

3,000 

47:53 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ^ ' ; 7  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

440  East  142nd  St $2,700  $3,000  47:53 

442  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

444  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

446  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

448  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

450  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

452  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

454  East  142nd  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

456  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

458  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

460  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

462  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

464  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

468  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

470  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,  00  46:54 

472  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

474  East  142nd  St 2,600  3,100  46:54 

476  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

478  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

480  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

482  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

484  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

486  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

488  East  142nd  St 2.500  3,200  44:56 

490  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

492  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

494  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

496  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

498  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,100  45:55 

-  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,100  45:55 

500  East  142nd  St 2,500  3,200  44:56 

$563,600  $609,500 


SAMPLE   DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT   SECTION   TEN,  BOROUGH  OF 

THE  BRONX 

(Standard  Composite  Raiio:  38.71:61.29) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  r- ^ ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1224  Union  Ave $2,500  $5,000  33:67 

1226  Union  Ave 2,500  5,000  33:67 

1228  Union  Ave 2,500  5,000  33:67 

1230  Union  Ave 2,500  5,000  33:67 

1232  Union  Ave 2,500  5,000  33:67 

1333  Prospect  Ave 3,300  6,700  33:67 

East   156th   St    (S.S.,  bet.   Kelly  and 

Beck) 3,500  6.000  2>7:6Z 

818  East   169th   St 2,200  3,500  38.6:61.4 

822  East  169th   St 2,200  3,700  37:63 

824  East   169th   St 2,200  3,600  38:62 

826  East  169th  St 2,200  3,600  38-62 

828  East   169th   St 2,200  3,500  38.6-61.4 


$30,300 


$55,600 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                              , • n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1234  Union  Ave $2,200  $2,800  44:56 

1236  Union  Ave 2,200  2,800  44:56 

952  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56-44 

953  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

956  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

957  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

958  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

959  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  5644 

960  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

961  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

962  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

963  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

966  East  156th  St 5,000  4,000  56:44 

967  East  156th  St .5,000  4,000  56-44 

969  East  156th  St 7,500  6,000  56:44 

811  East   168th   St 4,400  3,200  58:42 

813  East   168th   St 4,400  3,200  58:42 

815  East   168th   St 4,400  3,200  58:42 

817  East   168th   St 4,400  3,200  58:42 

819  East   168th   St 4.400  3,200  58:42 

821   East   168th   St 4,400  3,200  58:42 

802  East   169th   St 2,900  2,700  52:48 

804  liast   169th   St 2,900  2,600  53:47 

806  East   169th   St 2,800  2,400  54:46 

808  East   169th   St 2,800  3,300  46:54 

810  East   169th   St 2.800  3,100  47:53 

812  East   169th   St 2,800  2,900  49:51 

814  Ea.st   169th   St 2,800  2,800  50:50 

816  East   169th   St 2,800  3,000  48:52 

820  East   169th   St 2,300  3,600           38.98:61.02 

830  East   169th   St 2,200  3,300  40:60 

—  East   169th   St 7,000  6,500  52:48 

1240  East  169th  St 4,100  5,900  41 :59 

712  Beck  .St 5,000  3.200  58:42 

714  Beck  St 5,000  3.200  58:42 

716  Beck  St 5.000  3.200  58:42 

718  Beck  St 5,000  3,200  58:42 

719  Beck  St 5,000  3,500  59:41 

720  Beck  St 5.000  3,200  58:42 


194 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Address  < '"' > 

Improvements  Land 

721  Beck  St $5,000 

722  Beck  St 5,000 

723  Beck  St 5.000 

724  Beck  St 5,000 

725  Beck  St 5,000 

726  Beck  St 5,000 

751  Beck  St 5,000 

752  Beck  St 5,500 

753  Beck  St 5,000 

754  Beck  St 5,500 

755  Beck  St 5,000 

756  Beck  St 5,000 

757  Beck  St 5,000 

758  Beck  St 5,000 

759  Beck  St 5,000 

760  Beck  St 5,500 

761  Beck  St 5,000 

762  Beck  St 5,500 

lez  Beck  St 5.000 

764  Beck  St 5.000 

765  Beck  St 5.000 

766  Beck  St 5,000 

767  Beck  St 5,000 

768  Beck  St 5,500 

769  Beck  St 5,000 

770  Beck  St 5,500 

771  Beck  St 5,500 

772  Beck  St 5.000 

773  Beck  St 5,500 

774  Beck  St 5,000 

775  Beck  St 5,500 

n(i  Beck  St 5,500 

IV  Beck  St 5,500 

778  Beck  St 5,500 

730   Kelly   St 8,000 

732    Kelly    St 8,000 

734   Kelly    St 6,000 

736   Kelly    St 6,000 

738   Kelly    St 5,500 

740    Kelly    St 6,000 

742    Kelly    St 4,500 

744   Kelly    St 4,500 

746   Kelly    St 4,500 

748   Kelly   St 4,500 

750   Kelly   St 5,000 

752   Kelly   St 5,000 

754  Kelly   St 8.000 

756   Kelly    St 8,000 

$426,000  $395,500 


Ratio 


$3,500 

59:41 

3,200 

58:42 

3,500 

59:41 

3,200 

58:42 

3,500 

59:41 

3,200 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

56:44 

4,000 

58:42 

4,000 

58:42 

4.000 

58:42 

4.000 

58:42 

4,500 

64:36 

4,500 

64:36 

4,500 

57:43 

4,500 

57:43 

4,500 

55:45 

4,500 

57:43 

4,500 

50:50 

4,500 

50:. 50 

4,500 

50:50 

4,500 

50:50 

4,500 

53:47 

4,500 

53:47 

4,500 

64:36 

4.500 

64:36 

195 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  ELEVEN,   BOROUGH   OF 

THE   BRONX 

(Standard  Composite  Raiio:  38.71:61.29) 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               i * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1335  Findlay  Ave $2,400  $5,600  30:70 

1348  Teller  Ave 2,200  4,800  31:69 

—  Washington  Ave.  (E.S.,  181-182d  Sts.)          5,000  11,000  31:69 

1234  Washington  Ave 1,700  2,800  38:62 

2136  Washington  Ave 1,700  2,800  38:62 

2138  Washington  Ave 1,700  2,800  38:62 

2140  Washington  Ave 1.500  4,500  25:75 

2146  Washington  Ave 1,900  4,600  29:71 

2148-48'/  Washington  Ave 1,600  6,900  19:81 

2152  Washington  Ave 2,300  5,200  31 :69 

2156  Washington  Ave 2,700  4,800  36:64 

2164  Washington  Ave 2,500  4,000  36:64 

2166  Washington  Ave 2,500  4,000  38.46:61.54 

2168  Washington  Ave 2,000  4,000  38.46:61.54 

2172-74  Washington  Ave 3,000  8,000  27:73 

2179  Washington  Ave 1,700  3,100  35:65 

2181  Washington  Ave 1,700  3,300  34-66 

2163  Bathgate  Ave 2,700  4,300  38.5:61.5 

2165  Bathgate  Ave 2,700  4,300  38.5:61.5 

2167  Bathgate  Ave 2,700  4,300  38.5:61.5 

$46,200  $95,100 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               : * >  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1300  Findlay  Ave $4,900  $2,100  70:30 

1302  Findlav  Ave 5,000  2,000  71 :29 

1304  Findlay  Ave 3,600  2,400  60:40 

1306  Findlay  Ave 3,200  2,000  60:40 

1308  Findlay  Ave 3,200  2,000  60:40 

1310  Findlay  Ave 3,200  2,000  60:40 

1312  Findlay  Ave 3.200  2,000  60:40 

1314  Findlay  Ave 3,500  2,500  58:42 

1316  Findlay  Ave 3,500  2,500  58:42 

1318  Findlay  Ave 3,000  2,000  60:40 

1320  Findlay  Ave 3,000  2,000  60:40 

1322  Findlay  Ave 3,000  2,000  60:40 

1324  Findlay  Ave 3,000  2,000  60:40 

1326  Findlay  Ave 3,500  2,500  60:40 

1304  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1306  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1308  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1310  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1312  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1314  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1315  Teller  .'Xve 3,300  2,200  60:40 

1316  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1317  Teller  Ave 3,300  2,200  60:40 

1318  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1319  Teller   Ave 4,300  2,700  61:39 

1320  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1322  Teller  Ave 3,600  2,400  66:34 

1323-25  Teller  Ave 9,900  6;100  62:38 

1324  Teller  Ave 3,400  2,400  60:40 

1326  Teller  Ave 3,400  1,600  60:40 


196 


Group  B:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  i * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1327  Teller  Ave $4,200  $2,800  60:40 

1328  Teller  Ave 3,400  1,600  60:40 

1329  Teller  Ave 4,200  2,800  60:40 

1330  Teller  Ave 3,400  1,600  60:40 

Teller  Ave 5,700  2,800  67:33 

1332  Teller  Ave 3,600  2,400  60:40 

Teller  Ave 5,700  2,800  67:33 

1334  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

Teller  Ave 5,700  2,800  67:33 

1336  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

Teller  Ave 4,700  2,800  63:37 

1338  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1340  Teller  Ave 2,100  2,400  47:53 

1342  Teller  Ave 4,100  2,400  63:37 

1346  Teller  Ave 4,600  2,400  66:34 

1354  Teller  Ave 6,100  2,400  72:28 

1356  Teller  Ave 6,100  2,400  72:28 

1358  Teller  Ave 3,300  2,400  58:42 

1360  Teller  Ave 6,600  2,400  73:27 

1364  Teller  Ave 3,100  2,400  56:44 

1366  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1368  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1369  Teller  Ave 3,000  3,000  50:50 

1370  Teller  Ave 2,400  1,600  60:40 

1371  Teller  Ave 3,000  3,000  50:50 

1372  Teller  Ave 2,800  2,400  54:46 

1373  Teller  Ave 3,000  3,000  50:50 

1374  Teller  Ave 2,100  2,400  47:53 

1379  Teller  Ave 5,500  2,500  69:31 

Teller  Ave 5,800  7,200  45:55 

1386  Teller  Ave 2,600  1,400  65:35 

1388  Teller  Ave 4,800  2,700  64:36 

351   East   169th   St 6.200  3,300  65:35 

353  East   169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

355  East  169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

357  East   169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

359  East   169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

361   East  169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

363  East  169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

365   East   169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

367  East  169th   St 3,300  2,200  60:40 

392  East   170th  St 4,700  1,300  78:22 

394  East  170th  St 4,700  1,300  78:22 

396  East  170th   St 4.800  2.700  64:36 

1291-95  Clay    Ave 9,000  9.000  50:50 

1297  Clay    Ave 3,000  3.000  50:50 

1299  Clay    Ave 3.300  2,200  60:40 

1301  Clay    Ave 3.200  2,300  58:42 

1303  Clay    Ave 3,200  2,300  58:42 

1305  Clay    Ave 4,200  2,300  65:35 

1307  Clay    Ave 4.300  2.200  66:34 

1309  Clay    Ave 4.200  2,300  65:35 

1311  Clay    Ave 3.000  3,000  50:50 

1315  Clay    Ave 2,500  3,000  45:55 

1317  Clay    Ave 2,100  1,900  53:47 

1319  Clay    Ave 2,100  1.900  53:47 

1321  Clay    Ave 2.100  1.900  53:47 

1323  Clay    Ave 2.500  2,800  47:53 

1325  Clay    Ave 2,700  2.800  49:51 

1327  Clay    Ave 2,300  1.900  55:45 

1329  Clay    Ave 2,100  1,900  52:48 

1331  Clay    Ave 2,100  1,900  52:48 

1337  Clay    Ave 3,200  2,800  53:47 

1339  Clay    Ave 3.200  2,800  53:47 


197 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


,  ,  ,  Assessed  Values 

Address  , — — >- 

Improvements 

1341  Clay    Ave $2,100 

1343  Clay    Ave 2,100 

1345  Clay    Ave 2,100 

1347  Clay    Ave 2100 

1349-51  Clay    Ave 4,400 

1353  Clay    Ave 3,200 

1355  Clay    Ave 3,200 

1357  Clay    Ave 2,800 

1359  Clay    Ave 2,800 

1361  Clay    Ave 2.800 

1363  Clay    Ave 2,200 

1365  Clay    Ave 2,200 

1367  Clay    Ave 2  200 

1369  Clay    Ave " ' '  4'700 

1371  Clay    Ave 4,700 

1377  Clay    Ave 4,500 

1379  Clay    Ave 4,500 

1381  Clay    Ave 4,500 

1383  Clay    Ave ■"  5,200 

1385  Clay    Ave 4,000 

1387  Clay    Ave 4,000 

182nd  St.  (S.S.,  Washington  to  Bathgate).  4,700 

4,500 

4,200 

~ 4,200 

2132  Washington  Ave 3,700 

2150  Washington  Ave 3,500 

2158  Washington  Ave 2,700 

2160  Washington  Ave ]  2^700 

2162  Washington  Ave 2,600 

2176  Washington  Ave 4400 

2178  Washington  Ave 4'l00 

2180  Washington  Ave 4,000 

2182  Washington  Ave 4,000 

2153  Bathgate  Ave 6,000 

2155  Bathgate  Ave 2.000 

2157  Bathgate  Ave.* 2^000 

2159  Bathgate  Ave 2^000 

2161  Bathgate  Ave 2^000 

2169  Bathgate  Ave '..\  5*200 

2171  Bathgate  Ave 3^200 

2173  Bathgate  Ave 3^200 

2175  Bathgate  Ave 4,000 

2177  Bathgate  Ave 4^000 


Land 

$1,900 
1,900 
1,900 
1,900 
3,600 
2,700 
2,700 
2,700 
2,700 
2,700 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
2,800 
2,800 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
1,800 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
1,800 
3,800 
5,000 
3,800 
3,800 
3,900 
2,900 
2,900 
3,000 
3,200 
6,000 
3,000 
3,000 
3,000 
3,000 
4,300 
4,300 
4,300 
5,000 
6,000 


Rati 


53:47 
53:47 
53:47 
53:47 
55:45 
54:46 
54:46 
51:49 
51:49 
46:54 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
63:37 
60:40 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
74:26 
67:33 
67:33 
70:30 
69:31 
68:32 
70:30 
49:51 
41:59 
42:58 
42:58 
40:60 
59:41 
57:43 
56:44 
51:49 
50:50 
40:60 
40:60 
40:60 
40:60 
55:45 
43:57 
43:57 
44:56 
40:60 


$486,000 


$370,700 


198 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  TWELVE. 
BOROUGH  OF  THE  BRONX 

(The  district  consists  of  parts  of  assessments  blocks: 

3294 — between  Bainbridge  and  Briggs  avenues  and  between  East  194th  and 
East  196th  streets — ; 

3298 — between  Bainbridge  and  Briggs  avenues  and  between  Bedford  Park  Boule- 
vard and  East  201st  Street — ;  and 

3299 — between  Perry  and  Briggs  avenues  and  between  Mosholu  Parkway  South 
and  East  201st  Street.) 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.71:61.29) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  ' ' ; 7  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

265  Bedford  Park  Boulevard $5,500  $11,500  32:68 

Briggs     Ave.      E.S.,     bet.     Bedford     Park 
Blvd.  and  E.  201st  St. 

G.Goldberg 3,200  6,600  33:67 

James  Wilson 3,400  6,600  34:66 

Bainbridge  Ave.   (W.S..  bet.  Bedford  Park 

Blvd.  and  E.  201st  St.)  ^  ^^^  „  ^- 

Cath.  McCormack      3,200  3,200  32:68 

$15,300  $27,900 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  <■  '^  "Z      "^ 

Improvements  Land 

2654  Briggs  Ave $3,500  $2,500 

Brieo-s  Ave       3,500  2,300 

Briles  Ave        3,500  2,300 

Briggs  Ave:: 3,500  2,300 

Brie-e-s  Ave  3,500  2,300 

—  Brigs  Ave::::.: 3,500  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 3,500  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 5.800  2,300 

Brills  Ave 5,800  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 5.800  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 5,800  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 5,800  2,300 

Brills  Ave 5,800  2,300 

Brigs  Ave 5,800  2,300 

Briggs  Ave 5  800  2  300 

Brio-o-s  Ave  5,800  2,300 

2686  Brills  Ave: : : : 5,800  2,400 

2958  Briggs  Ave 3,300  3,000 

Brills  Ave 3,300  3,000 

2962  Briggs  Ave 4,400  6,600 

Briggs  Ave 4.200  3,300 

2972  Briggs  Ave 5,500  3,300 

Briggs  Ave 4,200  3,300 

2976  Briggs  Ave 5,400  6,600 

2984  Briggs  Ave 4.000  3,300 

2655  Bainbridge  Ave 3.700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3.700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3.700  2.700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3.700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 3.700  2,700 

Bainbridge  Ave 5,000  2,700 

2671  Bainbridge  Ave 6,100  2,700 

2673  Bainbridge  Ave 5,600  2.700 

2677  Bainbridge  Ave 5,000  2,700 

199 


Ratio 

58:42 
60:40 
60:40 
60:40 
60:40 
60:40 
60:40 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:29 
72:28 
71:29 
55:45 
55:45 
40:60 
56:44 
62:38 
56:44 
40:60 
55:45 
58:42 
58:42 
58:42 
58:42 
58:42 
58-42 
58:42 
58:42 
64:36 
69:31 
67:33 
65:35 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ( * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

2679  Bainbridge  Ave $5,000  $2,800  64 :36 

2681  Bainbridge  Ave 5,000  2,800  64  -.Zd 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,500  2,800  56:44 

Bainbridge  Ave 5,800  3,600  62:38 

Bainbridge  Ave 5,800  3,600  62:38 

Bainbridge  Ave 7,500  7,200  51 :49 

2951  Bainbridge  Ave 6,400  3,600  64:36 

Bainbridge  Ave 8,000  3,600  69:31 

Bainbridge  Ave 6,300  7,200  47:53 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,500  3,300  51 :49 

Bainbridge  Ave 3,600  3,200  53:47 

Bainbridge  Ave 6,700  4,800  58 :42 

Bainbridge  Ave 6,700  4,800  58:42 

Bainbridge  Ave 6,700  4,800  58:42 

Bainbridge  Ave 4,800  3,200  60:40 

Bainbridge  Ave 4,800  3.200  60:40 

267  Bedford  Park  Boulevard 9,000  9,000  50 :50 

East  201st  St 7,500  6,000  56:44 

East  201st  St 4,000  2,700  60:40 

East  201st  St 4,800  2,700  64:36 

East  201st  St 3,500  2,700  56:44 

East  201st  St 3,500  2,700  56:44 

East  201st  St 3,500  2.700  56:44 

East  201st  St 4,500  7,000  39:61 

East  201st  St 4,400  3,600  55:45 

311  East  201st  St 5,000  3,100  62:38 

East  201st  St 5,000  3,000  63:37 

East  201st  St 5,000  3,100  62:38 

317  East  201st  St 6,500  6,000  52:48 

East  201st  St 3,400  2,600  57:43 

East  201st  St 3,400  2,200  61 :39 

East  201st  St 3,400  2,200  61:39 

East  201st  St 3,200  3,600  47 :53 

East  201st  St 3,700  3,600  51:49 

East  201st  St 3,000  2,700  53:47 

East  201st  St 5,000  6.000  45:55 

302  Mosholu   Parkway 7,000  6,000  54:46 

Mosholu   Parkway 6,000  8,500  41:59 

Mosholu   Parkway 7,000  6,500  52:48 

314  Mtosholu   Parkway 7,000  6,200  53:47 

Mosholu   Parkway 11,000  10,000  52:48 

2999  Perry  Ave 7,300  4,200  dZ-.Zl 

3003  Perry  Ave 8,200  8,800  48:52 


$403,000  $296,100 


200 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  FIFTEEN, 
BOROUGH  OF  THE  BRONX 

(The  district  consists  of  parts  of  assessment  blocks: 

4048 — between  Rhinelander  and  Morris  Park  avenues  and  between  Unionport 

Road,  Victor  and  Amethyst  streets — ; 
4051 — between  Rhinelander  and  Morris  Park  avenues  and  between  Cruger  and 
Holland  avenues.) 

(Standard  Composite  Raiio:  38.71:61.29) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
None 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                              ' * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

Mead   St $1,900  $1,800  51:49 

Mead    St 3,300  1,200  73:27 

Mead   St 1,700  1,450  54:46 

Mead    St 2,500  1,200  68:32 

Mead    St                   4,000  1,200  77:23 

Mead   St. 4,000  1,200  77:23 

Mead   St 4,000  1,200  77-23 

Mead   St 3,300  1,200  73:27 

Mead    St 3,300  1,200  71:29 

Mead    St 3,300  1,200  71:29 

Mead   St 1,600  1,200  57:43 

A'lead   St 2,200  1,200  73:27 

Mead   St 2,200  1,200  73:27 

Unionport    Road 2,800  1,600  64:36 

Unionport    Road 2,700  1,600  63:37 

Unionport    Road 1.500  1,600  48:52 

Unionport    Road 3,000  2,500  55:45 

Unionport    Road 2,600  1,200  68:.32 

Baker  Ave 3,000  1,200  71:29 

Baker  Ave 3,400  1,200  74:26 

Baker  Ave 3,400  1,200  74:26 

Baker  Ave 1,400  1,200  54:46 

Baker  Ave 4,200  1.200  78:22 

Baker    \ve 4.200  1,200  78:22 

Baker  Ave 2,000  1,200  62:38 

Baker  Ave 3,200  1,200  73:27 

Baker    Ave 2.800  1.200  70:30 

Baker  Ave 2.800  1,200  70:30 

Baker  Ave 2,800  1,200  70:30 

Baker  Ave 2,800  1,200  70:30 

Baker  Ave 2.800  1,200  70:30 

Baker  Ave 7,000  1,800  80:20 

Morris  Park  Ave 4,800  5,200  50:50 

Morris  Park  Ave 3,500  3.500  50:50 

Morris  Park  Ave 5,100  2,900  64:36 

Morris  Park  Ave 1,500  1,900  44:56 

Morris  Park  Ave 1,500  1,900  44:.S6 

Morris  Park  Ave 1.500  1,900  44:56 

Morris  Park  Ave 4.000  2.900  58:42 

Morris  Park  Ave 4,900  4,300  53:47 

Morris  Park  Ave 6.500  2,500  72:28 

Morris  Park  Ave 11,000  3,500  76:24 

Amethyst  St 2,500  1,000  65:35 

Amethvst  St 3,200  1,100  74:26 

Amethvst  St 3,200  1,100  74:26 

Amethvst  St 3,200  1,100  74:26 

Amethyst  St 3,800  1,200  76:24 

Amethyst  St 3.200  1.200  73:27 

Amethvst  St 3,000  1,200  71:29 

AmethVst  St 3,800  1,200  76:24 

AmethVst  St 4,000  1,200  77:23 

Amethyst  St 3,200  1,200  73:27 

Amethyst  St 3,200  1,200  73:27 

201 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address                               '  ^  I      T^ 

Improvements  Land 

Amethvst  St ^3,200  $1,200 

Amethyst  St 3,200  ,200 

Amethyst  St 3  200  ,800 

Rhmelander   Ave 3,200  1,000 

Rhinelander    Ave 3,200  1,000 

Rhmelander   Ave 3,000  ,000 

Rhmelander    Ave 3,700  1.000 

Rhinelander   Ave UOO  1,200 

Victor    St        2,700  1.700 

Vcor    S 2,200  1,200 

Vcor    S 2,200  1.200 

vicor  s :'::        2200  1.200 

Vcor    S 2.200  1.200 

vco  s ::::::::::::  2,200  1.200 

Vcor    S 2,800  1,200 

Vco  s :::::::::::        3200  1,200 

Victor    S 3,200  1,200 

VicoJ    St'"'::              .       3,200  1,200 

v!    or    It 3,200  1.200 

Victor    St               3,500  1.400 

Vctor    S 2,000  1.500 

Cn,°er  Ave"".:.. 3,000  1.200 

Cr  Ser  Ave      1.800  1,200 

Cr  Ser  Ave 3,000  1.200 

Cr  ^^er  Ave 2,800  1,200 

Cr  S  Ave""".: 3,200  1,200 

Cn^er  Ave                       3,200  1,200 

cruleri;:::::.: 3,300  uoo 

g;;S^:: ::•:::::::::::::::::::  S  S 

Cr  ger  Ave':       :                   3.300  1.200 

Cr  ler  Ave          3,300  1.200 

Cr'ler  Ave                 ..      3,300  1.200 

crif  Ave.::::: 3,300  uoo 

Cru-er  Ave    3,300  1,200 

Cr  ger  Ave             .    3,200  1.200 

cruKr  Ave.::::::::::::: 3,200  uoo 

Cnijrer  Ave    3,200  1,200 

Cruger  Ave 3,200  1,150 

Cruder  Ave 3,200  1,150 

Cruger  Ave 3,200  1,000 

Cruier  Ave 3,200  900 

Holland  Ave 3,200  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,200  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,200  1,200 

Holland   Ave 3,200  1.200 

Holland  Ave .3,200  1.200 

Holland  Ave 3,400  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,400  1,200 

Holland   Ave 3,400  1.200 

Holland  Ave 3,200  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,200  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,000  1,200 

Holland  Ave .3,000  1.200 

Holland  Ave 3,000  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,000  1.200 

Holland  Ave 1.800  1,200 

Holland   Ave 2,900  1.200 

Holland  Ave .3,100  1,200 

Holland  Ave 3,000  1,200 

Holland   Ave 3,100  1,200 

Holland  Ave .3,300  1,200 

Holland   Ave 3,500  1.200 

Holland  Ave 3,500  1,200 

$369,100  $162,550 

202 


Ratio 

73:27 

73:27 

64:36 

76:24 

76:24 

75:25 

73:27 

52:48 

61:39 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

70:30 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

71:29 

57:43 

71:29 

60:40 

71:29 

70:30 

73:27 

73:27 

73-27 

73:27 

73:27 

73-27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

73-27 

73:27 

73:27 

74:26 

74:26 

76:24 

78:22 

73:27 

73  -.27 

73:27 

73:27 

73:27 

74:26 

74:26 

74:26 

73:27 

73:27 

71:29 

71:29 

71:29 

71:29 

60:40 

71:29 

72-28 

71:29 

72:28 

66:34 

74:26 

74:26 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  SEVENTEEN,  BOROUGH 
OF  THE  BRONX 

(The  district  consists  of  parts  of  assessment  blocks: 

4837 — between  White  Plains  Road  and  Barnes  Avenue  and  between  East  223rd 

and  East  224th  streets—; 
4838 — ^between  White  Plains  Road  and  Barnes  Avenue  and  between  East  224th 

and  East  225th  streets — ; 
4847 — between  Barnes  and  Bronxwood  avenues  and  between  East  222d  and  East 

223rd  streets — ;    and 
4848 — between  Barnes  and  Bronxwood  avenues  and  between  East  223rd  and 

224th  streets.) 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.71:61.29) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


Ratio 


Improvements 

East  224th  St $1,400 

East  224th  St 1,400 

White   Plains  Road 2,900 

White   Plains  Road 2,900 

East  222d   St 1,300 

Barnes   Ave 1,800 

East  223d   St 1,000 

East  223d   St 800 


$13,500 


$5,100 

22:78 

4,800 

23:77 

7,500 

28:72 

5,500 

35:65 

2,200 

37:63 

2,900 

38.298:61.702 

1,800 

36:64 

1,800 

31:69 

$31,600 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Address 


Barnes   Ave... 
Barnes    Ave... 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 

East  223d  St. 


Assessed  Values 

Ratio 
76-24 

Improvements 
$5,200 

Land 

$1,600 

3,500 

1,050 

1,000 

1,050 

1,050 

1.050 

1,050 

1,100 

2,200 

1,200 

1,200 

2,700 

2,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

900 

900 

900 

900 

900 

1,800 

2,700 

900 

2,700 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

10,000 

74:26 

4,350 

81:19 

4,400 

81:19 

4,350 

81:19 

4  350 

81:19 

4,350 

81:19 

4.350 

81:19 

3,600 

77:23 

4,100 

65-35 

4,000 

77:23 

3,700 

76:24 

3,800 

58:42 

2  200 

52:48 

2  200 

69:31 

2,600 

72:28 

900 

47:53 

800 

47:53 

3,600 

80:20 

1,600 

64:36 

2  700 

75-25 

1  800 

67:33 

1,800 

50:50 

1,800 

40:60 

2.500 

74:26 

3,000 

53:47 

3,400 

77:23 

3.400 

77:23 

3,400 

77:23 

3  400 

77:23 

3,600 

78:22 

3,600 

78:22 

3.400 

77:23 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Address 


Assessed  Values 


Improvements 

East  224th  St $4,500 

East  224th  St ^.  2,100 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 2,600 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 2,500 

East  224th  St 3,700 

East  224th  St 3,700 

East  224th  St 3,700 

East  224th  St 3,700 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 2,100 

East  224th  St 3,600 

East  224th  St 2,200 

East  224th  St 2,200 

East  224th  St 2,200 

East  224th  St 4,200 

East  224th  St 1,800 

East  224th  St 4,000 

East  224th  St 3,000 

East  224th  St 3,300 

East  224th  St 2,200 

East  224th  St 2,200 

East  224th  St 2,800 

East  224th  St 2,800 

East  224th  St 2,700 

White   Plams  Road 2,700 

East  225th  St 1,600 

East  225th  St 3,000 

East  225th  St 3,000 

East  225th  St 3,550 

East  225th  St 4,200 

East  225th  St 4,200 

East  225th  St 4,200 

East  225th  St 4,200 

East  225th  St 4,400 

East  222nd  St 5,400 

East  222nd  St 3,600 

East  222nd  St 3,600 

East  222nd  St 7,100 

East  222nd  St ; 2,100 

East  222nd  St 1,800 

East  222nd  St 10,800 

East  222nd  St 3,600 


Land 
$1,200 
1,200 
2,400 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
800 
800 
800 
800 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
5,100 
1,000 
1,000 
1,800 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,200 
1,700 
2,700 
2,400 
1,200 
1,200 
1,250 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,100 
1,700 
1,000 
1,000 
2,200 
1,100 
2,200 
3,600 
1,200 


Ratio 

79:21 
64:36 
47:53 
70:30 
66:34 
69:31 
77:23 
77:23 
77:23 
77:23 
72:28 
72:28 
72:28 
72:2S 
75:25 
65:35 
65:35 
65:35 
45:55 
64:36 
80:20 
62:38 
73:27 
65:35 
65:35 
70:30 
70:30 
61:39 
50:50 
40:60 
71:29 
71:29 
67:33 
79:21 
79:21 
79:21 
79:21 
80:20 
76:24 
78:22 
78:22 
76:24 
66:34 
45:55 
75:25 
75:25 


$263,600 


$109,700 


204 


III.     BROOKLYN 


SAMPLE    DISTRICT     FROM     ASSESSMENT     SECTION     FIVE, 
BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39.44:60.66) 

Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Group  A: 

Address 


Improvements  Land 

201   Troy  Ave $1,250  $2,850 

203  Troy  Ave 525  1,875 

205  Troy  Ave 1,100  2,100 

213  Troy  Ave 500  1,800 

$3,375  $8,625 


Ratio 

30:70 
22:78 
36:64 
22:78 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  r ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

227  Albany  Ave $7,800  $3,200  71:29 

229  Albany  Ave 3,650  1,650  69:31 

231   Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

233  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

235   Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67-33 

237  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

239  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

241   Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

243   Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:3o 

245  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:3S 

247  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

249  Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

251    Albany  Ave 3,350  1,650  67:33 

253  Albany   Ave 6,100  3,200  66:34 

200  Park  Place 4,400  2,500  64:36 

202  Park  Place 3,800  1,500  72:28 

204  Park  Place 3,800  1,500  72:28 

208  Park  Place 3,800  1,500  72:28 

210-12  Park   Place 6,000  2,300  72:28 

212  Park  Place 5,800  1,500  79:21 

214  Park  Place 5,700  1,600  78:22 

216  Park  Place 5,700  1,500  79:21 

218  Park  Place 5,700  1,500  79:21 

220  Park  Place 5,700  1,500  79:21 

222  Park  Place 5,700  1,500  79:21 

1174  Park  Place 3,150  2,050  61:39 

1176  Park  Place 3,150  2,050  61:39 

1178  Park  Place 3,150  2,050  61:39 

1190  Park  Place 3,900  2,100  71:29 

1192  Park  Place 3,900  2,100  71:29 

1196  Park  Place 3,900  2,100  71:29 

1198  Park  Place 3,900  2,100  71:29 

1200  Park  Place 3,900  2,100  71:29 

1202  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1204  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1206  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1208  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1210  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1212  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1214  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1216  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1218  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1220  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 

1222  Park  Place 2,500  2,000  56:44 


205 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Address 


Assessed  Values 


1224 

1226 

1228 

1230 

1232 

1254 

1256 

1258 

1262 

1264 

1266 

1268 

1270 

1272 

1274 

1278 

1280 

1282 

1282* 

1288 

1290 

1292 

1294 

1296 

1298 

1300 

1302 

1304 

1308 

1310 

1312 

1203 

1205 

1207 

1209 

1211 

1215 

1217 

1219 

1221 

1223 

1225 

1227 

1229 

1231 

1233 

1235 

1237 

1239 

1241 

1243 

1245 

1247 

1249 

1251 

1253 

1255 

1257 

1259 

1261 

1263 

1289 


Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place . , 
Park  Place. . 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place. . 
Park  Place. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 
Park  Place.. 


Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 
Ster 


ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place, 

ing  Place. 


Improvements 

$2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
2,500 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
3,850 
4,050 
3,050 
3,950 
3,850 
3,700 
3,650 
3,650 
3,650 
3,650 
3,700 
3,750 
3.750 
3,800 
3,850 
3,900 
1.950 
1,800 
1.950 
1,950 
1,950 
2,550 
2,550 
2,550 
2,550 
2,550 
2,550 
1,480 
2.550 
2,550 
2,550 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2.350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,350 
2.350 
2,350 
2,350 
2,3.50 
3,800 


Land 

$  2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,750 
1,850 
1,750 
1,800 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,900 
1,850 
1,850 
1,800 
1,750 
1,700 
1,450 
1,700 
1,450 
1,450 
1,450 
2,050 
2,050 
2,050 
2,050 
2,050 
2,050 
1,150 
2.050 
2,050 
2,050 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 
1,950 

•  1,800 


Ratio 


56:44 
56:44 
56:44 
56:44 
56:44 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
67:33 
70:30 
68:32 
68:32 
67:33 
65:35 
65:35 
65:35 
65:35 
66:34 
67 -.n 
67  M 
68:32 
69:31 
70:30 
57:43 
51:49 
57:43 
57:43 
57:43 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
56:44 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55-45 
55-45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55-45 
55:45 
68:32 


•  Thus  in  record. 


206 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 
Address  i  *  ^ 

Improvements  Land 

1291   Sterling  Place $3,800  $1,800 

1293   Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1295   Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1297  Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1299   Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1301    Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1303  Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1307  Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1309  Sterling  Place 3,800  1.800 

1311   Sterling  Place 3,800  1,800 

1313  Sterling  Place 4,000  1,600 

1315   Sterling  Place 4,000  1,600 

1319  Sterling  Place 4,000  1,800 

1321    Sterling  Place 4,050  1,750 

1323  Sterling  Place 4,050  1,750 

1325   Sterling  Place 4,000  1,800 

1327  Sterling  Place 4,000  1,800 

1329  Sterling  Place 4,000  1,800 

1331   Sterling  Place 3,975  1,825 

1333   Sterling  Place ^ 3,950  1,850 

1335   Sterling  Place 3,925  1,875 

1337  Sterling  Place 4,200  2,900 

1343   Sterling  Place 3,950  1,950 

1345   Sterling  Place 3,950  1,850 

1347  Sterling  Place 3,950  1,850 

204  Troy  Ave 2,400  2,500 

206TrovAve 2,500  1,200 

206a  Tr'oy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

207  Troy  Ave 6,025  1,875 

208  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

210  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

211  Troy  Ave 2,550  1,950 

212  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

214  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

216  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

218  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

220  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

222  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

224  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

226  Troy  Ave 2,300  1,200 

228  Troy  Ave 2,500  1,200 

230  Troy  Ave 3,500  2,500 

$471,555  $271,025 


Ratio 


68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
68:32 
71:29 
71:29 
69:31 
70:30 
70:30 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
68:32 
68:32 
59:41 
67:33 
68:32 
68:32 
49:51 

62.5:37.5 
66:34 
76:24 
66:34 
66:34 
57:43 
66:34 
66:34 
66-34 
66-34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 
66:34 

62.5:37.5 
58:42 


207 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  SIX, 

BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39.44:60.56) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               / * n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

336  McDonough   St $1,900  $8,100  19:81 

338  McDonough   St 3,200  8,100  28:72 

406-10  McDonough   St 2,850  6,250  31:69 

333   Decatur   St 1,675  3,125  35:65 

339  Decatur  St 1,500  2,500  37.5:62.5 

343   Decatur   St 1,500  2,500  37.5:62.5 

345   Decatur   St 1,500  2,500  37.5:62.5 


$14,125 


$33,075 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 


Address  r 

Improvements 

298  McDonough  St $10,750 

300  McDonough  St 7,125 

302  McDonough  St 7,125 

304  McDonough  St 7,500 

306  McDonough  St 6,025 

308  McDonough  St 7,125 

310  McDonough  St 7,125 

312  McDonough  St 7,125 

314  McDonough  St 7,125 

316  McDonough  St 7,300 

318  McDonough  St 6,825 

320  McDonough  St 6,825 

322  McDonough  St 6,825 

324  McDonough  St 6,825 

326  McDonough  St 6,825 

328  McDonough  St 6,825 

330  McDonough  St 6,825 

332  McDonough  St 6,825 

344  McDonough  St 5,300 

346  McDonough  St 5,300 

348  McDonough  St 5,300 

350  McDonough  St 5,400 

362  McDonough  St 7,375 

364  McDonough  St 7,375 

366  McDonough  St 7,375 

368  McDonough  St 7.375 

370  McDonough  St 7,375 

372  ATcDonough  St 14,800 

374  McDonough  St 5,350 

376  McDonough  St 5,350 

378  McDonough  St 5,350 

380  McDonough  St 5,475 

382  McDonough  St 5,475 

384  A/[cDonough  St 5,475 

386  McDonough  St 5,675 

400  McDonough  St 3,825 

400a  McDonough  St 3,825 

402  McDonough  St 3,825 

404  McDonough  St 2,975 

412  McDonough  St 7,825 

414  McDonough  St 6,200 

416  McDonough  St 6,200 

418  McDonough  St 6,200 

420  McDonough  St 6.200 

422  McDonough  St 6,200 


Ratio 


$6,750 

61:39 

2,575 

74:26 

2,575 

74:26 

2,700 

74:26 

2,175 

74:26 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,700 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

73:27 

2,575 

72:28 

2,700 

66:34 

2,700 

66:34 

2,700 

66:34 

2,700 

67:33 

2,625 

74:26 

2,625 

74:26 

2,625 

74:26 

2,625 

74:26 

2,625 

74:26 

5,200 

74:26 

2,250 

70:30 

2,250 

70:30 

2,250 

70:30 

2,325 

70:30 

2,325 

70:30 

2,325 

70:30 

2,375 

70:30 

2,075 

65:35 

2,075 

65-35 

2.075 

65:35 

3,125 

49:51 

3,125 

72:28 

2,500 

71:29 

2,500 

71:29 

■2,500 

71:29 

2,500 

71:29 

2,500 

71:29 

208 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 
Address  (  ^  ~ 

Improvements 

424  McDonough  St $6,200 

426  McDonough  St 6,200 

428  McDonough  St 6.200 

430  McDonough  St 6,200 

432  McDonough   St 6,200 

434  McDonough  St 6,200 

225  Decatur  St 17.000 

227  Decatur   St 7,125 

229  Decatur  St v-  7,125 

231   Decatur   St 7.125 

233  Decatur  St 7,125 

235  Decatur   St 3,675 

237  Decatur   St 3,675 

237a  Decatur  St 3,675 

239  Decatur   St 3,675 

241   Decatur   St 3,675 

243  Decatur   St 3,675 

245  Decatur   St 4,700 

247  Decatur   St 4,700 

249  Decatur   St 4,700 

251   Decatur   St 4,700 

253  Decatur  St 4,100 

255  Decatur  St 4,100 

257  Decatur   St 4,100 

259  Decatur   St 9,000 

271   Decatur   St 6.075 

273  Decatur   St 5.950 

275   Decatur  St 5.950 

277  Decatur  St 5.950 

279  Decatur  St 5.950 

281    Decatur  St 6,375 

283  Decatur  St 6,375 

285   Decatur  St 6,375 

287  Decatur   St 6,375 

289  Decatur   St 6,375 

291   Decatur   St 4,875 

293  Decatur   St 4,875 

295  Decatur   St 4,875 

297  Decatur   St 4,875 

299  Decatur   St 4,950 

301   Decatur  St 11,400 

307  Decatur   St 4,400 

309  Decatur   St 4,200 

311   Decatur   St 4,200 

313  Decatur   St 4,200 

315  Decatur   St 4,400 

317   Decatur  St 4,550 

319  Decatur  St 4,550 

.321   Decatur  St 4,550 

.323  Decatur   St 4,650 

325  Decatur  St 3,650 

327  Decatur  St 3,575 

329  Decatur   St 3,575 

331   Decatur   St 3,575 

335  Decatur  St 3,025 

335a  Decatur  St 3,025 

337  Decatur  St 3,025 

341    Decatur   St 2,500 

347  Decatur  St 2,500 

349  Decatur   St 2,500 

351   Decatur  St 2,500 

353  Decatur   St 2,125 

355  Decatur  St 2,125 

357  Decatur  St 2,125 


Ratio 


Land 


$2,500 

71-29 

2,500 

71:29 

2,500 

71  -.29 

2,500 

71-29 

2,500 

71  -.29 

2,500 

71:29 

6,000 

74:26 

2,375 

75:25 

2,375 

75:25 

2,375 

75:25 

2,375 

75:25 

2,325 

61:39 

2,325 

61:39 

2,325 

61 :39 

2,325 

61 :39 

2,325 

61:39 

2,325 

61:39 

2,800 

63:37 

2,800 

63:37 

2,800 

63:37 

2,800 

63:37 

2,800 

59:41 

2,800 

59:41 

2,800 

59:41 

2,800 

76:24 

2.625 

70:30 

2,550 

70:30 

2,550 

70:30 

2,550 

70:30 

2,550 

70:30 

2.625 

71:29 

2.625 

71:29 

2.625 

71 :2Q 

2.625 

71:29 

2,625 

71:29 

2,625 

65:35 

2.625 

65:35 

2.625 

65:35 

2,625 

65:35 

2,550 

66:34 

5.100 

69:31 

2,500 

64:36 

2,500 

63:37 

2,500 

63:37 

2,500 

63:. 37 

2,500 

64:36 

2,250 

67:33 

2,250 

67:33 

2,250 

67:33 

2,250 

67:33 

2,450 

60:40 

2,325 

61:39 

2,325 

61:39 

2,325 

61:39 

2,075 

59:41 

2,075 

59:41 

2,075 

59:41 

2,500 

50:50 

1,900 

43:57 

1,900 

43:57 

1,900 

43:57 

2,975 

58:42 

2,975 

58:42 

3,175 

60:40 

209 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 
Address 

359  Decatur   St 

361    Decatur  St 

363   Decatur   St 

365   Decatur  St 

367   Decatur   St 

369  Decatur   St 

371    Decatur   St 

373  Decatur   St 

300  Reid  Ave 

302  Reid  Ave 

302*   Reid   Ave 

o04a  Reid  Ave 

306  Reid  Ave 

308  Reid  Ave 


- 

Katio 

Tiprovements 

Land 

,       $2,125 

$3,175 

60:40 

3,175 

2,125 

60:40 

2.525 

2,075 

55:45 

2,525 

2,075 

55:45 

2,525 

2,075 

55:45 

2,525 

2,075 

55:45 

2,325 

2,075 

53:47 

7,500 

5,000 

60:40 

13,900 

5,100 

73:27 

4,800 

2,300 

68:32 

4,800 

2,300 

68:32 

4,800 

2,300 

68:32 

4,800 

2,300 

68:32 

4,800 

2,300 

68:32 

$677,415 


$323,275 


210 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  EIGHT, 
BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  3944:60.56) 
Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address 


599  Bedford  Ave. 


Improvements 
$2,900 


Land 
$7,600 


$2,900 


$7,600 


Ratio 
29:71 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 


583 
585 
587 
589 
591 
593 
595 
597 
134 
136 
138 
140 
142 
144 
146 
148 
150 
152 
154 
156 
158 
160 
162 
164 
166 
168 
170 


190 
192 
194 
196 
198 
200 
202 
204 
206 
208 
210 
212 
214 
216 
218 
220 
222 
224 
226 
228 
230 


Address                               r ^ 

Improvements  Land 

Bedford  Ave $8,300  $8,700 

Bedford   Ave 4,300  4,700 

Bedford  Ave 4,300  4,700 

Bedford   Ave 4.300  4,700 

Bedford   Ave 4.300  4,700 

Bedford   Ave 3,600  4,900 

Bedford   Ave 3,600  4,900 

Bedford   Ave 3,600  4,900 

Keap  St 4,850  3,850 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 3.600  3,700 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 3,600  3.700 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 5,300  3,700 

Keap  St 3,600  3,700 

Keap  St 3,400  3,300 

Keap  St 3,400  3,400 

Keap  St 3,400  3,400 

Keap  St 3,200  3,300 

Keap  St 3,200  3,300 

Keap  St 3,200  3,300 

Keap  St 3,200  3,300 

Keap  St 3,750  2,650 

Keap  St 3,750  2,650 

Kepp  St 3,750  2,650 

Keap  St 3.750  2,650 

Keap  St 3,800  3,800 

Keap  St 3.700  3,600 

Keap  St 3,700  3.600 

Keap  St 3,650  3.650 

Keap  St 3,650  3,650 

Keap  St 3,650  3.650 

Keap  St 5.350  3.650 

Keap  St :.  8.850  3.650 

Keap  St 8.850  3.650 

Keap  St 4,850  3,650 

Keap  St 2.550  3.250 

Keap  St 2,550  3.250 

Keap  St 2,550  3.250 

Keap  St 2.950  3,250 

Keap  St 2,550  3,250 

Keap  St 4.050  3,450 

Keap  St 4,050  3,250 

Keap  St 4,050  3,250 

Keap  St 4,050  3,250 

Keap  St 4.050  3,250 

Keap  St 4,7.50  3,050 

Keap  St 4,750  3,050 


Ratio 

49:51 
48:52 
48:52 
48:52 
48:52 
42:58 
42:58 
42:58 
56:44 
49:51 
49:51 
49:51 
49:51 
49:51 
49:51 
49:51 
59:41 
49:51 
51:49 
50:50 
50:50 
56-44 
56:44 
56:44 
56:44 
59:41 
59:41 
59:41 
59:41 
50:50 
51:49 
51 :49 
50:50 
50:50 
50:50 
59:41 
71:29 
71:29 
57:43 
44:56 
44:56 
44:56 
48:52 
44:56 
54:46 
55:45 
55:45 
55:45 
55-45 
61:39 
61:39 


211 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 
Address  , a ^  ^^^.^ 

Improvements  Land 

232  Keap  St $4,750 

238  Keap  St 4  150 

240  Keap  St 3^900 

242  Keap  St 3,900 

244  Keap  St 3  900 

246  Keap  St 4,250 

248  Keap  St 4,200 

252  Keap  St 4,600 

254  Keap  St 4,600 

256  Keap  St 4,900 

258  Keap  St 4,800 

260  Keap  St 4,600 

262  Keap  St 3,450 

264  Keap  St 2,950 

266  Keap  St 2,950 

268  Keap  St 2  950 

270  Keap  St 31750 

272  Keap  St 3,750 

280  Keap  St 2,850 

282  Keap  St 2,850 

284  Keap  St 2,850 

286  Keap  St 2,850 

117  Hooper  St 3,800 

1 19  Hooper  St 4,800 

121  Hooper  St 3  900 

123  Hooper  St 3^850 

125  Hooper  St 3  900 

127  Hooper  St 3,850 

129  Hooper  St 3,850 

131  Hooper  St 3,900 

133  Hooper  St 3.900 

135  Hooper  St 3.900 

137  Hooper  St 3,800 

139  Hooper  St 3,800 

141  Hooper  St 3  900 

143  Hooper  St 3,'500 

143  Hooper  St 3,500 

147  Hooper  St 3.500 

167  Hooper  St 3,650 

169  Hooper  St 4,700 

171  Hooper  St 4.700 

1 73  Hooper  St 4700 

1 75  Hooper  St '  4*700 

177  Hooper  St 3,900 

179  Hooper  St 3,850 

181  Hooper  St 3,800 

183  Hooper  St 4,550 

185  Hooper  St 3,650 

185*  Hooper  St 3  350 

189  Hooper  St 3.350 

191  Hooper  St 3.300 

193  Hooper  St 4,600 

195  Hooper  St 4*600 

197  Hooper  St 4.600 

199  Hooper  St 4*600 

201  Hooper  St 4,'600 

203  Hooper  St 4^500 

205  Hooper  St 4.700 

207  Hooper  St 4'600 

209  Hooper  St 3,600 

211  Hooper  St 2.700 

213  1  loopcr  St 3,750 

*  Thus  in  record. 

212 


$3,050 

61:39 

4,350 

49:51 

2,900 

57:43 

2.900 

57:43 

2,900 

57:43 

2,950 

59:41 

3,000 

58:42 

2,900 

61 :39 

2,900 

61:39 

3,300 

60:40 

3,200 

60:40 

2,900 

61 :39 

3,050 

53:47 

3,050 

49:51 

3,050 

49:51 

3,050 

49:51 

3,050 

55:45 

3,050 

55:45 

2,850 

50:50 

2,850 

50:50 

2,850 

50:50 

2,850 

50:50 

3,300 

53:47 

3,700 

56:44 

3,300 

54:46 

3,350 

53:47 

3,400 

53:47 

3,350 

53:47 

3.350 

53:47 

3,600 

52:48 

3,600 

52:48 

3,600 

52:48 

3,000 

56:44 

2,900 

57:43 

2,900 

57:43 

2,900 

55:45 

2,900 

55:45 

3.000 

54:46 

2,550 

59:41 

3,100 

60:40 

3,100 

60:40 

3,100 

60:40 

3,100 

60:40 

3,100 

56:44 

3,150 

55:45 

3,200 

54:46 

3,150 

59:41 

2,650 

58:42 

2,650 

56:44 

2,650 

56:44 

2,700 

55:45 

3,200 

59:41 

3,200 

59:41 

3,200 

59:41 

3,200 

59:41 

3.200 

59:41 

3.300 

58:42 

3.100 

60:40 

3,200 

59:41 

3,200 

53:47 

3,400 

44:56 

2,550 

60:40 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ( ^ \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

215  Hooper  St 13,750  R550  60:40 

217  Hooper  St 3,750  2,550  60:40 

219  Hooper  St 3.750  2,550  60:40 

221  Hooper  St 4,000  3,800  42:58 

233  Hooper  St 3,100  3,100  50:50 

235  Hooper  St 2,900  3,000  49:51 

237  Hooper  St 2,900  2,950  50:50 

239  Hooper  St 3,350  2,900  54:46 

241  Hooper  St 3,400  2,850  55:45 

243  Hooper  St 3,450  2,800  57:43 

245  Hooper  St 3,450  2,850  52:48 

247  Hooper  St 3,300  3,000  52:48 

249  Hooper  St 3,300  3,000  52:48 

251  Hooper  St 3,300  3,000  52:48 

253  Hooper  St 3,700  3,000  55 :45 

255  Hooper  St 3,700  3,000  55:45 

257  Hooper  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

259  Hooper  St 2.700  3,000  47:53 

261  Hooper  St 2.700  3,000  47:53 

263  Hooper  St 2.700  3,000  47:53 

265  Hooper  St 2,700  3,000  47:53 

267  Hooper  St. 2,150  2,850  43:57 

269  Hooper  St 2,150  2,850  43:57 

271  Hooper  St 2.150  2,850  43:57 

273  Hooper  St 2,150  -2,850  43:57 

275  Hooper  St 2,600  2,900  47 :53 

277  Hooper  St " 3.100  2,600  54:46 

279  Hooper  St ,3.400  2,300  60:40 

113  Lee  Ave 4,700  3,600  57:43 

115  Lee  Ave 4,800  3,200  60:40 

117  Lee  Ave 3,800  3,200  54:46 

119  Lee  Ave 7,800  5,200  6040 

243  Marcy  Ave 3,050  2,950  51 :49 

245  Marcv  Ave 3,050  2,950  51:49 

247  Marcy  Ave 3.050  2.950  51 :49 

249  Marcy  Ave 3,050  2,950  51:49 

251  Marcy  Ave 3,050  2,950  51 :49 

253  Marcv  Ave 3,100  4,400  41:59 

258  Marcy  Ave 2.500  3,500  42:58 

260  Marcy  Ave 2.500  3,500  42:58 

272  Division  Ave 2,400  2,900  45:55 

274  Division  Ave 2,350  2,950  44:56 

276  Division  Ave 2,650  2.950  47:53 

280  Division  Ave 2.400  2,800  46:54 

282  Division  Ave 3,800  4,000  49:51 

6  Harrison  Ave 2.600  3,900  60:40 

8  Harrison  Ave 2,600  3,900  60:40 

8*  Harrison   Ave 2.600  3,400  57:43 


Thus  in  record. 


$584,800  $526,650 


213 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  TWELVE, 

BOROUGH   OF   BROOKLYN 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39.U: 60.56) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                           ^                     ,  t  „„j 

Improvements  Lana 

$11000  $3,000 

365  New  Jersey  Ave \'m)  1.000 

373  New  Jersey  Ave ^'^^J^  1100 

375  New  Jersey  Ave ^-^^^  1  100 

377  New  Jersey  Ave •^'T^'i  1  000 

403  New  Jersey  Ave >^-^^^  1 000 

405  New  Jersey  Ave ^-^^^  1^000 

407  New  Jersey  Ave -^'^^^  1000 

411  New  Jersey  Ave ^-^^  1  000 

413  New  Jersey  Ave -^'^^^  1  000 

415  New  Jersey  Ave v^^  joOO 

417  New  Jersey  Ave ^'^^„  1000 

419  New  Jersey  Ave "^'^^^  1  OOO 

423  New  Jersey  Ave ^-'^^^  2,000 

426  New  Jersey  Ave ^'^^"  1200 

366  Belmont  Ave |'^^"  1  lOO 

372  Belmont  Ave ^-^^^  IjOO 

374  Belmont  Ave ^^"  1  000 

376  Belmont  Ave |'^^^  1500 

378  Belmont  Ave i'^'i'i  95O 

363  Vermont   St ^'^"^^  95O 

365  Vermont   St -^-^g^  1000 

367  Vermont   St ^-^^^  1  000 

368  Vermont   St ^'^"^^  950 

369  Vermont    St ^'gj^  1  000 

370  A^ermont    St ^'^'^b^  95O 

371  Vermont   St ^'«J^  looo 

372  Vermont   St ^-^"^^  95O 

375   Vermont    St -^-"^^^  95O 

377   Vermont    St ;J'«J^  1  000 

379  Vermont   St ^loo  1.000 

381    Vermont    St ^-J^^  1000 

385  Vermont   St ""'f'  1000 

387  Vermont   St J-^^^  1 000 

388  Vermont   St J,uuu  ^, 

389  Vermont   St J-^^^  1000 

390  Vermont   St J'^^^  1 OOO 

391  Vermont   St J-g'^^  1000 

392  Vermont   St J'^^"  1 000 

393  Vermont   St ^^"^  1000 

394  Vermont   St J-^^^  1 OOQ 

305  Vermont   St J-^^^^  1 OQO 

39.S  Vermont   St J-^^^^  1  OQO 

399  Vermont   St J'^^^  1  qqO 

400  Vermont   St ^-^^^  2,000 

401  Vermont   St ^-^^^  2,000 

402  Vermont   St ^'^""  ____^_ 

$170,100  $51,800 


Ratio 

79:21 

79:21 

76:24 

76:24 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

75:25 

73-27 

56:44 

48:52 

45:55 

50:50 

50:50 

79:21 

80:20 

80:20 

71:29 

80:20 

71:29 

80:20 

71:29 

80:20 

80:20 

81:19 

81:19 

81:19 

81:19 

80:20 

81:19 

80:20 

81:19 

80:20 

81:19 

80:20 

81:19 

80:20 

81:19 

80:20 

78:22 

79:21 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  '^~  ,  t  „,,j 

Improvements  Lana 

32.  Wyona  S. *|500  ^-'foS 

iU&l:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::-     i:«,S 

214 


Ratio 

70:30 
74:26 
74:26 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 


Address 


326  Wyona  St 

327  Wyona  St 

328  Wvona  St 

329  WVona  St 

330  WVona  St 

331  Wyona  St 

333  Wyona  St 

334  Wyona  St 

335  Wyona  St 

336  Wyona  St 

:iZ7  Wvona  St 

338  Wyona  St 

339  Wyona  St 

340  Wvona  St 

341  Wvona  St 

342  Wvona  St 

343  Wyona  St 

344  Wvona  St 

345  Wvona  St 

346  Wvona  St 

347  Wyona  St 

348  Wyona  St 

349  Wyona  St 

350  Wvona  St 

351  Wyona  St 

352  Wvona  St 

353  WVona  St 

354  Wyona  St 

355  Wvona  St 

357  Wvona  St 

359  Wvona  St 

361  Wvona  St 

363  WVona  St 

332  Bradford  St 

334  Bradford   St 

338  Bradford  St 

340  Bradford  St 

344  Bradford   St 

346  Bradford  St 

348  Bradford   St 

350  Bradford  St 

352  Bradford  St 

354  Bradford  St 

356  Bradford   St 

358  Bradford  St 

360  Bradford  St 

362-66*  Bradford  St. 

364  Bradford  St 

366  Bradford   St 


Improvements 
. .        $2,500 

Land 
$1,000 

2,600 

900 

2,500 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

2,500 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

3,000 

1,000 

2,600 

900 

2,600 

900 

2,600 

900 

2,600 

900 

3,100 

1.900 

2,500 

1.500 

2.500 

1.500 

2,500 

1.500 

3,000 

1,500 

2,500 

1.500 

3,050 

950 

3,050 

950 

3,050 

950 

3,050 

950 

2.850 

950 

3,050 

950 

3.050 

950 

3  050 

950 

3.050 

950 

3,050 

950 

6.100 

1,900 

Ratio 

72:28 
74-26 
72:28 
74:26 
72:28 
74:26 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74.26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75:25 
74:26 
75-25 
74-26 
75:25 
74:26 
60:40 
74:26 
74:26 
74:26 
74:26 
62:38 
63:37 
63:37 
63:37 
67:33 
63:37 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 
75:25 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 
76:24 


$318,600 


$106,100 


Thus  in  record. 


215 


SAMPLE   DISTRICT   FROM   ASSESSMENT    SECTION    SIXTEEN, 
BOROUGH   OF   BROOKLYN 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39.44:60.56) 
Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Address  i ^ — 

Improvements 

1135   Ditmas   Ave $3,200 

1720  Ditmas   Ave 6,500 

584  Newkirk  Ave 6,500 

1715  Newkirk  Ave 17,500 


Land 
$5,100 
10,500 
10,000 
30,000 


$33,700 


$55,600 


Ratio 

39:61 
38:62 
39:61 
37:67 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  r * 1  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

407  Dorchester  Road $5,300  $5,700  48 :52 

445  Dorchester  Road 5,400  5,100  51 :49 

445*  Dorchester  Road 4.700  5,300  47:53 

446  Dorchester  Road 7,200  4,600  61 :39 

447  Dorchester  Road 5,700  6,100  48:52 

448  Dorchester  Road 6,400  4,900  57:43 

450  Dorchester  Road 5,000  5,000  50:50 

456  Dorchester  Road 4,700  3,500  57:43 

1106  Dorchester  Road 4,700  3,500  57:43 

451  Westminster  Road 5,300  3,200  62:38 

455  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60:40 

456  Westminster  Road 5,000  3,200  61 :39 

461  Westminster  Road 4,900  3,200  60 :40 

462  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60:40 

465  Westminster  Road 5,500  3,200  63  -.37 

466  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60 :40 

470  Westm.inster  Road 4.800  3,200  60:40 

471  Westminster  Road 5,100  3,200  61 :39 

473  Westminster  Road 5.800  3,200  64 :36 

476  Westminster  Road 5,000  3,200  61 :39 

480  Westminster  Road 5,500  3 ,200  63 :37 

481  Westminster  Road 5,100  3,200  61 :39 

485  Westminster  Road 5.300  4,000  57 :43 

486  Westminster  Road 5.000  3,200  61 :39 

491  Westminster  Road 4,600  3,600  56 :44 

492  V/estminster  Road 4,800  3,600  57 :43 

497  Westminster  Road 4,200  3,200  57 :43 

498  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60 :40 

501  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60:40 

502  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60 :40 

506  Westminster  Road 4,800  3,200  60 :40 

507  Westminster  Road 5,400  3,200  63 :37 

512  Westminster  Road 5.200  4,000  57 :43 

515  Westminster  Road 6,200  3.400  65 :35 

518  Westminster  Road 4,700  4,800  49 :51 

—  Ditmas   Ave 4,400  4.600  49:51 

1115   Ditmas  Ave 5.000  4.000  56:44 

1121   Ditmas  Ave 4,600  4,000  53:47 

1207  Ditmas  Ave 6,600  6.400  51:49 

1211   Ditmas  Ave 5,500  4.500  55:45 

1217  Ditmas  Ave 5,200  4.500  54:46 

1221    Ditmas  Ave '  ,6.000  7.000  46:54 

—  Ditmas  Ave 10,000  11.000  48:52 

1690  Ditmas  Ave 12.000  10.500  53:47 

1700  Ditmas  Ave 12,700  10.800  54:46 

1712  Ditmas   Ave 8.400  8.100  51:49 

—  Ditmas   Ave 10,400  8,300  56:44 

*  Thus  in  record. 

216 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 
Address  <  '^         ^      ~      p 

Improvements  Land 

1890  Ditmas  Ave $12,500  $11300 

453  Stratford  Road 6,300  3,200 

457  Stratford  Road 5,600  3,200 

461  Stratford  Road 6,000  3,200 

467  Stratford  Road 6,000  3,200 

471  Stratford  Road 5,000  3,200 

-  Stratford  Road 5,200  3,200 

481   Stratford  Road 5,000  3,200 

-  Stratford  Road 5,200  3,200 

493  Stratford  Road 5,100  3,200 

501   Stratford  Road 5,100  3,200 

505  Stratford  Road 5,100  3,200 

-  Stratford  Road 5.400  3,200 

449  Argyle   Road 6,100  3,600 

455  Argyle   Road 6,100  3,200 

456  Argyle   Road 3,800  3,200 

459  Argyle   Road 5.000  3,200 

460  Argyle   Road 3.800  3,200 

465  Argyle  Road 5.300  3,200 

466  Arlyle  Road 4.000  3,200 

469   Argyle   Road 5.300  3,200 

472  Argyle   Road 7.400  7,600 

475   Argyle  Road 5,300  3,200 

481    Argyle   Road 5,300  3,200 

483  Argyle   Road 5.300  3,200 

484  Arlvie   Road 4.200  4,000 

490  Argyle   Road 6.000  4,000 

491  Argvle   Road 5.300  3,200 

495  Arg>'le   Road 5,300  3,200 

496  Argyle   Road 4.600  3,600 

501   Argyle   Road 5,800  3,200 

505  Argyle   Road 5,300  3,200 

508  Argyle   Road 4.900  3,600 

511  Argyle   Road 5.800  3,200 

512  Argvle   Road 4.200  3,600 

515   Argvle   Road 5.800  3,200 

520  Argyle   Road 4.700  4,800 

521  Argyle   Road 5.800  3,200 

1303   Argvle   Road 5,800  4,700 

449  Rugby  Road 6,500  3,400 

454  Ruiby  Road 6.000  4,000 

457  Rugby  Road 5.800  3,400 

458  Rugby  Road 6.200  3,400 

459  Rugby  Road 6,200  3,400 

462  Rugby  Road 4.800  3.400 

467  Rugby  Road 4.800  3,400 

469  Rugby  Road 6.200  3,400 

470  Rugbv  Road 6.400  3,400 

474  Rugby  Road 5.900  3,400 

477  Rubgy  Road 5.400  3,400 

479  Rugby  Road 6,100  3.400 

480  Rugby  Road 6.600  5,100 

484  Rugby  Road 6,750  4,250 

485  Rugby  Road 5,800  3,400 

489  Rugby  Road 6.200  3.400 

494  Rugby  Road 6.450  4.250 

495  Rulby  Road 6.100  3,400 

498  Rugby  Road 6.200  3.400 

501  Rugby  Road 5.800  3.400 

502  Rugby  Road 6,200  3,400 

503  Rugby  Road 6,200  3,400 

506  Rugby  Road 5.900  3.400 

509  Rugbv  Road 7,600  3,400 

512  Rugby  Road 6,200  3,400 


Ratio 

53:47 
66:34 
64:36 
65:35 
65:35 
61:39 
62:38 
61:39 
62:38 
62:38 
62:38 
62:38 
63:37 
63:37 
61:39 
54:46 
61:39 
54:46 
62:38 
56:44 
62:38 
49:51 
62:38 
62:38 
62:38 
51:49 
60:40 
62:38 
62:38 
56:44 
64:36 
62:38 
58:42 
64:36 
54:46 
64:36 
49:51 
64:36 
55:45 
66:34 
60:40 
63:37 
65:35 
65:35 
59:41 
59:41 
65:35 
65:35 
63:37 
61:39 
64:36 
56:44 
61:39 
63:37 
65:35 
60:40 
64:36 
65:35 

65:35 
65:35 

69:31 
65:35 


217 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 


Address 


Improvements 


513  Rugby  Road $6,500 

516  Rugby  Road 7,300 

517  Rugby  Road 6,600 

522  Rugby  Road 5,900 

523  Rugby  Road 9,000 

526  Rugby  Road 7,200 

452  Marlborough  Road 5,700 

456  Marlborough  Road 5,000 

458  Marlborough  Road 4,700 

462  Marlborough  Road 5,700 

466  Marlborough  Road 5,600 

470  Marlborough  Road 6,200 

474  Marlborouiiih  Road 4,700 

476  Marlborough  Road 4,700 

480  Marlborough  Road 6,200 

484  Marlborough  Road 5,900 

488  Marlboroueh  Road 4,700 

492  Marlborough  Road 6,200 

496  Marlborough  Road 4,700 

500  Marlborough  Road 4,700 

504  Marlborough  Road 4,700 

508  Marlborough  Road 6,400 

537  East  17th  St 6,200 

543  East  17th  St 6,200 

546  East  17th  St 7,300 

549  East  17th  St 6.200 

552  East  17th  St 6,200 

555  East  17th  St 6,200 

560  East  17th  St 6,200 

561  East  17th  St 7.000 

564  East  17th  St 6,200 

572  East  17th  St 7,700 

—  East  17th  St 5,800 

—  East  17th  St 6,200 

653  East  17th  St 5,500 

659  East  17th  St 5.700 

665  East  17th  St 6,500 

671  East  17th  St 5,500 

677  East  17th  St 7,000 

689  East  17th  St 6.000 

701  East  17th  St 7,000 

707  East  17th  St 5,500 

713  East  17th  St 5,500 

719  East  17th  St 5,500 

725  East  17th  St 5.750 

578  Newkirk  Ave 6.500 

1603  Newkirk  Ave 3,700 

1609  Newkirk  Ave 3,300 

1615  Newkirk  Ave 7.800 

1815  Newkirk  Ave ' 5,800 

1819  Newkirk  Ave ~  . .  6.000 

511  East  16th  St 5,500 

513  East  16th  St 5,750 

519  East  16th  St 5.500 

523  East  16th  St 5,500 

549  East  16th  St 5,500 

525  East  18th  St 5.500 

531  East  18th  St 5.750 

532  East  18th  St 6.300 

535  East  18th  St 5.500 

539  East  18th  St 6.000 

543  East  18th  St 5,500 

.^44  East  18th  St 6,250 

.548  East  18th  St 6,250 


Land 

$3,400 
3,400 
3,400 
3,400 
5,000 
5,800 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
3,200 
5,400 
6,000 
6,000 
6,500 
6.000 
6.000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
6,000 
7,900 
4,700 
3.600 
5.000 
5,000 
5.000 
5.000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
5,000 
6.300 
5,000 
4,000 
4,700 
4,700 
4,700 
4,750 
4,750 
4.750 
4.750 
5,500 
6,000 
5.750 
5,400 
5,750 
5,750 
5750 
5,750 
5.750 


Ratio 

66:34 
68:32 
66:34 
63:37 
64:36 
55:45 
64:36 
61:39 
59:41 
64:36 
64:36 
66:34 
59:41 
59:41 
66:34 
65:35 
60:40 
66:34 
60:40 
60:40 
60:40 
54:46 
51:49 
51:49 
53:47 
51:49 
51:49 
51:49 
51:49 
54:46 
51:49 
49:51 
55:45 
6?,:2,7 
52-48 
53:47 
57-43 
52:48 
58:42 
55:45 
58:42 
52:48 
52:48 
52:48 
54:46 
51:49 
53:47 
45:55 
62:38 
55:45 
56:44 
54:46 
55:45 
54:46 
54:46 
50:.S0 
48:53 
50:50 
54:46 
49:51 
51:49 
49:51 
52:48 
52:48 


218 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                           > ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

554  East  18th  St $5,600  $6,900  45:55 

635  East  ISth  St 5,300  5,200  51 :49 

639  East  18th  St 5,400  3,800  59:41 

642  East  18th  St 6,200  3,800  62:38 

643  East  18th  St 6,000  4.500  57:43 

646  East  18th  St 6,300  3,200  66:34 

649  East  18th  St 7,200  4,500  62:38 

652  East  18th  St 7,000  4,500  61:39 

655  East  18th  St 4,500  4,500  50:50 

658  East  18th  St 4,500  4.500  50:50 

661  East  18th  St 7,200  4,500  62:38 

664  East  18th  St 6,000  4,500  57:43 

667  East  18st  St 4,500  4,500  50:50 

670  East  18th  St 6,700  4.500  60-40 

673  East  18th  St 5.500  4.500  55:45 

674  East  18th  St 4.500  4.500  50:50 

679  East  18th  St 7,000  4.500  61 :39 

682  East  18th  St 5,300  4.500  54:46 

685  East  ISth  St 7,900  4,500  64:36 

690  East  18th  St 6,250  4,500  58:42 

693  East  18th  St 4,500  4,500  50:50 

699  East  18th  St 7,700  4.500  63:37 

700  East  18th  St 7,700  4,500  63:37 

705  East  18th  St 8.000  4.500  64:36 

706  East  18th  St 7,500  4,500  62,:Z7 

711  East  18th  St 5,300  4,500  54:46 

712  East  18th  St 8,000  4,500  64:36 

717  East  18th  St 4.500  4.500  50:.S0 

718  East  18th  St 4.500  4.500  50:50 

723  East  18th  St 6.700  4.500  60:40 

724  East  18th  St 5.300  4.500  54:46 

729  East  18th  St 7,000  4,500  61:39 

730  E.-ist  18th  St 4,500  4.500  50:50 

520  East  19th  St 6,650  6.850  49:51 

526  East  19th  St 6.800  6.000  53:47 

530  East  19th  St 6.800  6,000  53:47 

536  East  19th  St 6.800  6.000  53:47 

540  East  19th  St 7.000  6,300  53:47 

616  East  19th  St 5,700  4,300  52:48 

624  East  19th  St 4,450  4,050  52:48 

630  East  19th  St 4.500  4.500  50-50 

636  East  19th  St 6,300  4.500  58:42 

642  East  19th  St 6.500  4.500  59:41 

648  East  19th  St 4,900  4.500  52:48 

654  East  19th  St 5.300                     4.500  54:46 

660  East  19th  St 4,700                      4,500  51:49 

666  East  19th  St 6,000                     4,500  57:43 

672  East  19th  St 4.700                     4.500  51 :49 

678  East  19th  St 4.600                      4.500  51 :49 

684  East  19th  St 4,700                      4,500  51 :49 

690  East  19th  St 5,650                      4,500  56:44 

696  East  19th  St 6.350                      4.500  59:41 

702  East  19th  St 5.450                     4.500  55:45 

708  East  19th  St 6.350                     4.500  59:41 

714  East  19th  St 5,450                     4.500  55:45 

720  East  19th  St 6.500                      4.500  59:41 

1703  Avenue  G 6,400                      7,600  46:54 

1709  Avenue  G 7.000                     4.750  60:40 

1721  Avenue  G 7.400                      7.600  49:51 

1803  Avenue  G 6.900                      5.250  57:43 

1809  Avenue  G 5.000                      4,750  51:49 

1815  Avenue  G 7,500                       4,750  61:39 

1821   Avenue  G 8.250                      5.250  61:39 

$1,396,600  $1,050,550 

219 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  NINETEEN, 
BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

6172 — between  18th  and  19th  avenues  and  between  70th  and  71st  streets—; 
6178 — between  13th  and  14th  avenues  and  between  71st  and  72nd  streets — ; 
6200 — between  13th  and  14th  avenues  and  between  73rd  and  74th  streets — ; 
6222 — between  13th  and  14th  avenues  and  between  75th  and  76th  streets — ;  and 
6233 — between  13th  and  14th  avenues  and  between  76th  and  77th  streets.) 
(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  3944:60.56) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  r ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

7308  14th  Ave $2,500  $4,500  36:64 


$2,500  $4,500 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Address  r ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

7001   18th  Ave $7,000  $1,500 

7003  18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

7007  18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

7011   18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

7015  18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

7017  18th  Ave 10,000  2,000 

7021   18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

18th  Ave 5,000  1,000 

7023  18th  Ave T 7,000  1,500 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St              4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 4,000  4,700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3.000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3.000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,000  700 

70th  St 3,400  1,200 

71st  St 3,000  700 

71st  St 3.000  700 

71st  St 3,000  .-700 

71st  St 3,000  700 

71st  St 3,000  700 

220 


82 

18 

83 

17 

83 

17 

83 

17 

83 

17 

83 

17 

83 

17 

83 

17 

82 

18 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

85 

15 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

74 

26 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

81 

19 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  < ' 1 ?  Ratio 

Improvements 

71st  St $3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3.000 

1835  71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3.000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3.000 

71st  St 3,000 

1855  71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3.000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St ^ 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,000 

71st  St 3,400 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 1.900 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2,100 

71st  St 2.100 

71st  St 2.100 

7ist'St 2.100 

71st  St 2.100 

71st  St 2.100 

7104  14th  Ave 3,500 

7108  14th  Ave 3.000 

7115   14th  Ave 3.600 

14th  Ave 2.100 

7316  14th  Ave 3.400 

7320  14th  Ave 3.500 

14th  Ave 4.800 

14th  Ave 4.300 

14th  Ave 4.300 

14th  Ave 3.100 

14th  Ave 3.100 

14th   Ave 3,100 

14th  Ave 3,100 

14th   Ave 3,300 

72nd  St 2,800 

. 72nd  St 4.000 

72nd  St 4.000 

72nd  St 4.000 

72nd  St 4.000 

72nd  St 4,000 

72nd  St 3.700 

72nd  St 3,500 

72nd  St 3,500 

72nd  St 3,500 

72nd  St 3,500 

221 


Land 

$700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

700 

81:19 

1,100 

76-24 

800 

72:29 

1,800 

51:49 

1,800 

54:46 

1,800 

54:46 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

800 

72:28 

2,900 

55:45 

2,600 

54:46 

3,900 

48:52 

1.800 

54:46 

2.800 

55:45 

4.500 

44:56 

4,200 

53:47 

2.600 

62:38 

2,600 

62:38 

2.900 

52:48 

2,600 

54:46 

2,600 

54:46 

2,600 

54:46 

2,900 

53:47 

1,800 

55:45 

1,800 

69:31 

1,800 

69:31 

1,800 

69:31 

1,800 

69:31 

1,800 

69:31 

1,800 

67:33 

900 

80:20 

900 

80:20 

900 

80:20 

900 

80:20 

Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                           i ^ n  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

■  72nd  St $3,500  $900  80:20 

•  72rd  St 3,500  900  80:20 

■  72nd  St 3,500  900  80:20 

■  72nd  St 3,500  900  80:20 

■  72nd  St 3,500  900  80:20 

■  13th  Ave 7,700  2,300  77:23 

■  13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

■  13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

■  13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

■  13th  Ave 5.200  1,500  78:22 

•  13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

13th  Ave 5,200  1.500  78:22 

13th  Ave 5,200  1,500  78:22 

13th  Ave 7.700  2,300  77:23 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1.200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave .^ 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 4,500  1,200  79:21 

13th  Ave 7,500  1,500  83:17 

73rd  St 4,200  1,800  70:30 

73rd  St 4.200  1,800  70:30 

73rd  St 4,200  1,800  70:30 

73rd  St 4,200  1,800  70:30 

73rd  St 4,200  1,800  70:30 

73rd  St 3,900  1,800  68:32 

73rd  St 4,500  900  83:17 

73rd  St 2,400  1,800  57:43 

73rd  St 2,400  1,800  57:43 

73rd  St 2,400  1,800  57:43 

73rd  St 2.400  1,800  57:43 

73rd  St 3.800  1.800  68:.32 

73rd  St 2.400  1.800  57:43 

73rd  St 2.700  1,800  60:40 

74th  St 2,800  1,800  61:39 

74th  St 2,800  1,800  61:39 

74th  St 2,500  1,800  58:42 

74th  St 2,500  1,800  58:42 

74th  St 2,800  1,800  61:39 

74th  St 2,500  1,800  58:42 

74th  St 2,800  1,800  61:39 

74th  St 4,450  1,800  66:34 

74th  St 4,700  1,800  72:28 

74th  St 4.700  1,800  72:28 

74th  St 4.700  1.800  72:28 

74th  St 4,700  1,800  72:28 

75th  St 2,500  1,700  60:40 

75th  St 2,4.50  1,550  62:38 

75th  St 2,450  1,550  62-38 

75th  St 2,450  1,550  62:38 

7Sth  St 2,450  1,550  62:38 

7Sth  St 2,450  1,550  62:38 

75th  St 2,750  1,550  64:.36 

75th  St 4,300  2,000  68:32 

75th  St 4,300  2,000  68:32 

75th  St 4,300  -2,000  68:32 

75lh  St 4,300  2,600  62:38 

76th  St 3,200  1,000  76:24 

222 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  ' ' ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

76tli  St $3,000  $1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

75th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

76th  St 4,000  900  82:18 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1.000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3.000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,000  1,000  75:25 

77th  St 3,600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3,600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3,600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3,600  900  8020 

77th  St 3,600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3,600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3.600  900  80:20 

77th  St 3.600  900  80:20 

$728,550  $297,600 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  TWENTY, 
BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 
(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

6687 — between  avenues  G  and  H  and  between  Westminster  and  Argyle  roads — ; 

6688 — between  avenues  G  and  H  and  between  Argyle  and  Rugby  roads — ; 

6689 — between  Avenue  G  and  Waldorf  Court  and  between  Rugby  Road  and  E. 

17th  Street — ;  and 
6690 — between  Waldorf  and  Wellington  courts  and  between  Rugby  Road  and 
E.  17th  Street.) 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39. W- 60.56) 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               ' * \  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

788  East  17th  St $6,400                 $12,600  34:66 

$6,400  $12,600 

Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address                               > ■ — * ^  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

1202  Avenue  G $8,700                   $5,700  60:40 

1212  Avenue  G 6,300                     3,400  65:35 

1304  Avenue  G 4,950                     4,850  51:49 

1312  Avenue  G 6,450                      4,250  60:40 

1316  Avenue  G 5,000                      3,400  60:40 

1320  Avenue  G 5,300                      5,700  48:52 

1404  Avenue  G 5,150                     4,850  52:48 

1410  Avenue  G 6.750                     4,250  60:40 

1416  Avenue  G 6,200                      4,400  59:41 

1422  Avenue  G 6,200                      4,400  59:41 

1426  Avenue  G 6,000                     4,400  58:42 

1430  Avenue  G 6,000                      4,100  59:41 

1434  Avenue  G 4,500                      2,700  63:37 

1444  Avenue  G 4,400                      2,800  61:39 

1448  Avenue"  G 6,000                     4,200  59:41 

*1554  Avenue  G 5,400                     4,400  55:45 

1462  Avenue  G 5,000                     4,400  53:47 

1466  Avenue  G 5,000                      4,400  53:47 

1470  Avenue  G 6,000                     4,300  58:42 

1476  Avenue  G 7,200                     7,300  50:50 

715  Argyle   Road 4,550                      4,250  52:48 

716  Argyle   Road 5,050                      4,250  54:46 

*716  Argyle   Road 5,700                     3,400  63:37 

720  Argyle   Road 5,500                      3,400  62:38 

721  Argyle   Road 4,750                      4,250  53:47 

722  Argjde   Road 4,750                      4,250  53:47 

725  Argyle   Road 4,500                     3,400  57:43 

726  Argyle  Road 4,400                     3,400  56:44 

*726  Argyle  Road 5,800                     3,400  63:37 

730  Argyle   Road 5,900                      3,400  63:37 

731  Argyle   Road 4,400                      3,400  56:44 

732  Argyle  Road 4,900                     3,400  59:41 

735  Argj'le   Road 5,000                      3,400  60:40 

736  Argyle  Road 4,400                      3,400  56:44 

7.39  Argyle   Road 4,800                      3,400  59:41 

740  Argyle   Road 4,600                      3,400  58:42 

*740   Argyle   Road 5,500                      3,400  62:38 

744  Argyle  Road 5,900                     3,400  63:37 

745  Argyle  Road 4,400                     3,400  56:44 

746  Argyle  Road 4,500                      3,400  57:43 

750  Argyle  Road 5,000                     '3,400  60:40 

*  Thus  in  record. 


Land 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Address  ' * 

Improvements 

751  Argyle   Road $4,600  $ 

752  Argyle   Road 4,900 

752   Argyle   Road 4,900 

754  Argyle   Road 6,000 

755  Argyle  Road 4,400 

756  Argyle   Road 5,000 

759  Argyle   Road 4,800 

760  Argyle  Road 4,400 

*760  Argyle   Road 4,900 

764  Argyle   Road 4,800 

765  Argyle  Road 4,700 

766  Argyle   Road 4,600 

769  Argyle   Road 4,400 

770  Argyle   Road 4,800 

*770  Argyle   Road 6,100 

775  Argyle  Road 5,000 

776  Argyle  Road 4,400 

779  Argyle   Road 4,800 

780  Argvle   Road 4,900 

*780  Argyle  Road 4,900 

783  Argjle   Road 4,600 

784  Argvle   Road 4.700 

*784  Argvle  Road 4,575 

790   ArgVle   Road 4,900 

*790  Argyle  Road 4,875 

793  Argvle   Road 4,500 

794  Argyle   Road 5,000 

*794   Argyle   Road 5,000 

719  Westminster  Road 5,950 

725  Westminster  Road 5,750 

729  Westminster  Road 5,800 

733  Westminster  Road 6,300 

737  Westminster  Road 5,800 

741  Westminster  Road 5,800 

745  Westminster  Road 5,800 

751  Westminster  Road 5.800 

755  Westminster  Road 5,800 

761  Westminster  Road 5.800 

765  Westminster  Road 5,800 

771  Westmnister  Road 5,800 

775  Westminster  Road 5.800 

781  Westminster  Road 5.800 

785  Westminster  Road 5,800 

789  Westminster  Road 5.800 

793  Westminster  Road 5.800 

715  Rngbv  Road 6,100 

721  Rngh'y  Road 4,400 

725  Rugby  Road 4,800 

741  Rugby  Road 4.500 

745  Rugby  Road 4,600 

751  Rugby  Road 4.400 

755  Rngbv  Road 5.600 

12  Waldorf  Court )  4,800 

15  Waldorf  Court 4,400 

16  Waldorf  Court 3,400 

19  Waldorf  Court 6,300 

20  Waldorf  Court 5,220 

23   Waldorf   Court 5,000 

26  Waldorf   Court 4,380 

27  Waldorf   Court 6,100 

28  Waldorf  Court 5,400 

31    Waldorf   Court 4,400 


Ratio 


3,400 

58:42 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

64:36 

3,400 

56:44 

3,400 

60:40 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

56:44 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

58:42 

3,400 

58:42 

3,400 

56:44 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

64:36 

3,400 

60:40 

3,400 

56:44 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

59:41 

3,400 

58:42 

3,400 

58:42 

3,825 

54:46 

3,400 

59:41 

3,825 

56:44 

3,400 

57:43 

4.300 

54:46 

4,000 

56:44 

4,250 

58:42 

4,250 

57:43 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

65:35 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63-37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

3,400 

63:37 

4,000 

59:41 

3,400 

64:36 

3,400 

56:44 

4,400 

52:48 

3.800 

54:46 

3,800 

55:45 

3,400 

56:44 

4,800 

54:46 

3,200 

60:40 

3,200 

58:42 

3,200 

58:42 

3.200 

66:34 

3.280 

61:39 

3.200 

61:39 

3.120 

58:42 

3.200 

66:34 

3.000 

64:36 

3,000 

59:41 

Thus  in  record. 


225 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Address  r- ^ ,  Ratio 

Improvements  Land 

^i  )f.^!1°''^.  ^^"'^ ^4,500  $2,500  64:36 

T.   ^^^H"""^  ^""""^ 4,500  2,500  64-36 

;^   }^^^°'1  S°"''^ 4,500  2,500  64:.36 

44   Wadorf   Court 4,500  3,200  69:31 

47  Waldorf   Court 6,000  3  200  65  -"^S 

51    Waldorf   Court 4,500  3!600  56-44 

^2  Waldort   Court 7,500  3,600  68:32 

c?   Sr'^^^''^  ^""'^ 5-000  3,600  58:42 

56   Waldorf  Court 6,240  3,960  61:39 

^i  ^y/^'^''^  £°"''^ 5,000  3,600  58:42 

62  Wakorf   Court 6,050  4,050  60:40 

f^  )^AK^°''r   ^°"'"^ 5,000  3,600  58:42 

66  Wadorf   Court 6,850  4.950  58:42 

*735    Waldorf    Court 5,300  4,800  52-48 

744  East  17th  St 6,000  4,000  60:40 

75S  East     7th  St 6,500  4,500  55:45 

^62  East    /th  St 6,200  5,700  52:48 

-qS  5^'^^?^ '  c' 8-400  6,100  58:42 

(f2  East  17th  St 8,000  5.500  59:41 

J^  Weuigton  Cou  rt 4,400  3,200  58 :42 

19  Welhngton   Court 4,400  3  200  58-4^ 

23  Wellington  Court 4,600  3^200  59 -41 

27  Wellington  Court 5.000  3,200  61 :39 

or  ))r^'  ."gton  Court 5.000  3,000  63 -.2,1 

35  WH  ington  Court 4,500  2,500  64  -M 

43  We  hngton  Court 6,900  3,900  64:36 

4.^  Wenigton  Court 5,200  3,200  62 :38 

o3  We  hngton  Court 6.100  3,600  63  -.Zl 

57  Wenigton  Court 5,250  4,050  56 :44 

65  Welhngton   Court 7150  4  950  59-41 


$707,930  $492,710 


*  Thus  in  record. 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  ASSESSMENT  SECTION  TWENTY-THREE, 
BOROUGH  OF  BROOKLYN 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

7560— between  avenues  G  and  H  and  between  E.  32nd  Street  and  New  York 

Avenue — ;  j  -r-    o^  i. 

7561 — between  avenues  G  and  H  and  between  New  York  Avenue  and  E.  34th 

Street—; 
7562 — between  avenues  G  and  H  and  between  E.  34th  and  E.  35th  streets.) 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  3944:60.56) 

Group  A :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 
None. 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  VaUies 


Address 


6  East  32nd  St 

9  East  32nd  St 

11  East  32nd  St 

13  East  32nd  St 

15  East  32nd  St 

17  East  32nd  St 

19  East  32nd  St 

21  East  32nd  St 

23  East  32nd  Si 

25  East  32nd  St 

27  East  32nd  St 

30  East  32nd  St 

32  East  32nd  St 

34  East  32nd  St 

37  East  32nd  St 

3204  Glenwood  Road. 
3208  Glenwood  Road. 
3212  Glenwood  Road. 
3216  Glenwood  Road. 
3220  Glenwood  Road. 
3304  Glenwood  Road. 
3308  Glenwood  Road. 
3312  Glenwood  Road. 
3316  Glenwood  Road. 
3320  Glenwood  Road. 
3404  Glenwood  Road. 
3408  Glenwood  Road. 
3412  Glenwood  Road. 
3418  Glenwood  Road. 
3422  Glenwood  Road. 
1595  New  York  Ave. 

1598  New  York  Ave. 

1599  New  York  Ave. 

1605  New  York  Ave. 

1606  New  York  Ave. 

1609  New  York  Ave. 

1610  New  York  Ave. 
1613  New  York  Ave. 

1619  New  York  Ave. 

1620  New  York  Ave. 
1624  New  York  Ave. 
1626  New  York  Ave. 
1630  New  York  Ave. 

1634  New  York  Ave. 

1635  New  York  Ave. 
1639  New  York  Ave. 
1641  New  York  Ave. 
1644  New  York  Ave. 


Improvements 
$4,100 
4,000 
3.900 
3,400 
3,200 
3,600 
3,500 
3,900 
3.600 
2,700 
4.400 
3,700 
3,450 
5,050 
4,050 
4.450 
2,000 
3,000 
3,500 
5.000 
4,150 
3,300 
3,300 
4,200 
4,150 
3,800 
3.200 
3,200 
3.800 
3.800 
3,100 
4.300 
2,500 
3.300 
2,900 
3.700 
3.000 
3,600 
3.500 
3,500 
2.900 
2.500 
2.500 
2.600 
4,300 
3,700 
3.700 
4,100 


Land 
$4,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2.000 
2,000 
3,300 
2,200 
2,250 
2.750 
2,750 
2.950 
2.600 
2,600 
2,600 
3.300 
2,950 
2,600 
2,600 
2.600 
2,950 
2.700 
2.400 
2.400 
2,400 
2,400 
2.200 
2.200 
2.200 
2,200 
2.200 
2.200 
2,200 
2.200 
2,200 
2.200 
2.200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
1,100 
1,100 
2.200 


Ratio 

51:49 
65:35 
64:36 
61:39 
59:41 
62:38 
67:33 
64:36 
62:38 
55:45 
57:43 
63:37 
61:39 
65:35 
60:40 
60:40 
51:4Q 
54:46 
57:43 
60:40 
58:42 
56:44 
56:44 
62:38 
58:42 
58:42 
57:43 
57:43 
61:39 
58:42 
59:41 
66:34 
53:47 
60:40 
57:43 
63:37 
58:42 
62:38 
61:39 
61 :39 
57:43 
61  :.39 
61:3Q 
62-38 
66:34 
77:23 
77:23 
65:35 


227 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Address 


Assessed  Values 


1645  New  York  Ave. 
1547  New  York  Ave. 
1648  New  York  Ave. 

1651  New  York  Ave. 

1652  New  York  Ave. 

1653  New  York  Ave. 
1656  New  York  Ave. 
1660  New  York  Ave. 
1664  New  York  Ave. 

925  East  34th  St 

929  East  34th  St 

933  East  34th  St 

934  East  34th  St 

937  East  34th  St 

938  East  34th  St 

941  East  34th  St 

942  East  34th  St 

945  East  34th  St 

947  East  34th  St 

949  East  34th  St 

950  East  34th  St 

954  East  34th  St 

955  East  34th  St 

958  East  34th  St 

962  East  34th  St 

966  East  34th  St 

967  East  34th  St 

969  East  34th  St 

974  East  34th  St 

979  East  34th  St 

987  East  34th  St 

988  East  34th  St 

Avenue  H 

8.56  Avenue  H 

860  Avenue  H 

864  Avenue  H 

868  Avenue  H 

872  Avenue  H 

876  Avenue  H 

880  Avenue  H 

890  Avenue  H 

894  Avenue  H. 

908-10  Avenue 

912  Avenue  H. 

914  Avenue  H. 
3413  Avenue  H. 
3419  Avenue  H. 


Improvements 
$2,900 


H. 


2,200 
3,100 
2,900 
2,800 
2,500 
3,600 
3,100 
3,950 
4,500 
3,700 
3,200 
5,000 
3,000 
2,800 
4,200 
2,700 
3,900 
4,100 
4,100 
3,800 
3,800 
4,000 
3,100 
3,200 
3,200 
3,100 
3,800 
4,000 
3,500 
5,200 
3,600 
5,000 
4,600 
3,600 
3,700 
4,300 
3,500 
2,500 
6,000 
3,100 
2,600 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
4,000 
3,000 


$345,550 


Land 

$2,200 
3,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,200 
2,050 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
2,000 
5,300 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
1,800 
1.800 
1,800 
900 
900 
900 
1,600 
2,400 

$208,450 


Ratio 


57:43 
59:41 
59:41 
57:43 
56:44 
53:47 
62:38 
59:41 
66:34 
69:31 
65:35 
62:38 
71:29 
60:40 
58:42 
68:32 
57:43 
66:34 
67:33 
67:33 
66:34 
66:34 
67:33 
61:39 
62:38 
62:38 
61:39 
66:34 
67:33 
64:36 
72:28 
64:36 
49:51 
72:28 
67 -.ZZ 
67 -.Zi 
70:30 
66:34 
58:42 
77:23 
6Z:Z7 
59:41 
82:18 
82:18 
82:18 
71:29 
56:44 


228 


IV.     QUEENS 

SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  ONE,  BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

79 — ^between  Crescent  and  Ely  avenues  and  between  Jamaica  Avenue  and  Elm 
Street — ;    and 
174 — between  Trowbridge  Street  and  Hoyt  Avenue  and  between  Woolsey  and  Willow 
streets.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:  38.49:61.51) 

Group  A:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot  • • Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Crescent  and  Ely  Avenues  and  between  Jamaica  Avenue  and  Elm  Street.) 

9  $2,200  $4,800  20:80 

11  3,200  4,800  31:69 

30  800  1,600  33:67 

31  800  1,600  33:67 

34  800  1.600  33:67 

35  800  1,600  33:67 
45  1,100  2,800  38:62 
56  1,000  2,000  33:67 


$10,700  $20, 


Group  B:    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Values 


Ward,  Lot " 

or  Map  No.            Improvements                    Land 

Ratio 

3en  Crescent  and  Ely  Avenues  and  between  Jamaica 

Avenue  and  Elm  Stn 

1                             $1,600                         $1,900 

46:.54 

3                               1,600                           1,900 

46:54 

4                               1,500                           1,900 

44:.56 

5                               1,300                           1,900 

41:59 

6                               1,300                           1,900 

41:59 

7                               2,100                           2,400 

47:53 

8                               2,100                           2,400 

47:53 

15                                1,800                           2,400 

47:53 

20                               1,700                           2,700 

38.64:61.36 

21                               1,000                              800 

56:44 

22                               1.000                              800 

56:44 

23                               1,000                              800 

56:44 

24                               1,100                           1,400 

44:56 

25                               1,100                           1,400 

44:56 

26                               3,100                           1,900 

62:38 

27                               2,900                           1,500 

66:34 

28                               1,200                           1,500 

44:56 

29                               1,200                           1,500 

44:56 

33                                1,400                           1,600 

47:53 

36                                1,500                           1,600 

48:52 

37                              1,500                          1,600 

48:52 

41                                1,500                           1,300 

54:46 

42                               1,500                           1,300 

54:46 

43                               2,500                           2,000 

56:44 

45                               2,300                           2,300 

50:50 

47                               1,400                           1,800 

44:56 

48                               1,000                           1,300 

43:57 

49                                1,000                           1,300 

43:57 

50                              1.000                          1,300 

43:57 

51                              1,000                          1,300 

43:57 

52                                  950                           1,350 

41:59 

53                                  950                           1,350 

41:59 

54                                  950                           1,350 

41:59 

55                                1,400                           2,100 

40:60 

56                               1,400                           1,400 

50:50 

59                              2,700                          2,500 

52:48 

Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot  _- — ' T  R^tio 

or  Map  No. 


7 
9 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
42 
43 
44 
50 
51 
52 
54 
75 
76 
77 
78 


nprovements 

Land 

id  Hoyt  Avenue  and 

between  ^ 

$3,500 

$1,000 

3,500 

1,000 

3,500 

1,000 

3,450 

850 

3,450 

850 

3,450 

850 

3,450 

850 

3,500 

1,000 

3,500 

1,000 

3,500 

1,000 

1,600 

1,900 

1,700 

1,600 

2,700 

1,600 

2,100 

1,600 

3,900 

1,400 

2,000 

1,400 

900 

1,400 

1,500 

1,400 

3,100 

1,400 

2,400 

2,800 

1,100 

1,400 

5,000 

1,000 

5,000 

1,000 

5,000 

1,000 

5,000 

1,000 

$143,050  $111,850 


78:22 
78:22 
78:22 
80:20 
80:20 
80:20 
80:20 
78:22 
78:22 
78:22 
49:51 
52:48 
63:37 
57:43 
74:26 
59:41 
39:61 
52:48 
69:31 
46:54 
44:56 
83:17 
83:17 
83:17 
83:17 


230 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  TWO,  BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS 

(The  district  consists  of  parts  of  assessment  blocks: 

175 — between  Centre  and  De  Bevoise  avenues  and  between  Midwood  and  Washington 

avenues; 
176 — between  De  Bevoise  and  Harmon  avenues  and  between  Midwood  and  Cooper 
avenues; 
55 — ^between   Railroad  and  Ludlow  Avenue  and   between  5th  Street  and  Whitney- 
Avenue;  and 
65 — between  Elmliurst  and  Whitney  avenues  and  between  3d  and  4th  streets.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio  :  38.49  :  61.51) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be  Increased 
None. 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 


Ward,  Lot 
or  Map  No. 


Ratio 


Land 


Improvements 

(Between  Centre  and  De  Bevoise  avenues  and  between  Midwood  and  Washington 
avenues.) 


$6,800 
3,300 
3,000 
3,000 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,400 
3,400 
3,400 
3,400 
3,400 


$1,200 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
1,200 


85:15 
81:19 
79:21 
79:21 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
74:26 


(Between  De  Bevoise  and  Harmon  avenues  and  between  Midwood  and  Cooper  avenues.) 


$6,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 
3,300 


$1,200 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 
800 


231 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Woltld  Be  Decreased — Continued 


Ratio 


81:19 
85:15 
89:11 
86:14 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 
81:19 


62:38 
71:29 
71:29 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
70:30 
71:29 
50:50 
40:60 
57:43 
57:43 
60:40 
74:26 
73:27 
73:27 
73:27 
74:26 


70:30 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
69:31 
70:30 
65:35 
64:35 
64:36 
64:36 
65:35 
58:42 


Ward,  Lot 

Assessed 

Values 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

De  Bevoise  and  Harmon  avenues  and  between  Midvs 

17 

$3,300 

$800 

22 

3,300 

600 

27 

6,200 

800 

28 

5,000 

800 

29 

3,300 

800 

30 

3,300 

800 

31 

3,300 

800 

32 

3,300 

800 

33 

3,300 

800 

34 

3,300 

800 

35 

3,300 

800 

36 

3,300 

800 

37 

3,300 

800 

38 

3,300 

800 

39 

3,300 

800 

40 

3,300 

800 

41 

3,300 

800 

42 

3,300 

800 

43 

3,300 

800 

44 

3,300 

800 

45 

3,300 

800 

46 

3,300 

800 

Railroad  and  Ludlow  avenues  and  between  5th  St 

1 

$6,500 

$4,000 

6 

3,000 

1,200 

7 

3,000 

1,200 

8 

2,800 

1,200 

9 

2,800 

1,200 

10 

2,800 

1,200 

11 

2,800 

1,200 

12 

2,800 

1,200 

13 

2,800 

1,200 

14 

2,800 

1,200 

15 

2,800 

1,200 

16 

3,000 

1,200 

27 

2,250 

2,250 

29 

2,000 

3,000 

31 

2,000 

1,500 

33 

2,000 

1,500 

35 

2,200 

1,500 

39 

3,400 

1,200 

40 

3,300 

1,200 

41 

3,300 

1,200 

42 

3,300 

1,200 

43 

3,400 

1,200 

jtween  Elmhurst  and  Whitney  avenues  and  betwee; 

5 

$3,000 

$1,300 

6 

2,900 

1,300 

6^ 

2,900 

1,300 

7 

2,900 

1,300 

8 

2,900 

1,300 

9 

2,900 

1,300 

10 

2,900 

1,300 

10^ 

2,900 

1,300 

11 

2,900 

1,300 

12 

3,000 

1,300 

17 

2,800 

1,500 

18 

2,100 

1.200 

19 

2,100 

1,200 

20 

2,100 

1,200 

21 

2,800 

1,500 

23 

2,200 

1,600 

232 


Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' ■  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Elmliurst  and  Whitney  avenues  and  between  3d  and  4th  streets.) — Cont'd. 

24  $2,200                          $1,600  58:42 

25  2,200                            1,600  58:42 

26  2,200                            1,600  58:42 

29  2,200                           1,600  58:42 

30  2,200                           1,600  58:42 

31  2,200                           1,600  58:42 

32  2,200                           1,600  58:42 


$349,250  $118,350 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  THREE,  BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

75 — between  Percy  Street  and  Parsons  Avenue  and  between  Lincoln  and  Amity- 
streets — ; 

75 — between  Bowne  and  Parsons  avenues  and  between  Amity  Street  and  Madison 
Avenue — ; 

77 — between  Parsons  Avenue  and  Percy  Street  and  between  Madison  Avenue  and 
Amity  Street — ;  and 

78 — between  Bowne  and  Parsons  avenues  and  between  Madison  Avenue  and  Barclay 
Street.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   39.51  :  60.4d) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot  ■ ■ .  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Percy  Street  and  Parsons  Avenue  and  between  Lincoln  and  Amity  streets.) 
7  $2,300  $3,700  38.33:61.67 

(Between  Bowne  and  Parsons  avenues  and  between  Amity  Street  and  Madison  Avenue.) 

7  $3,600  $8,200  31:69 

39  3,100  8,100  28:72 

47  2,800  5,400  34:66 


$11,800  $25,400 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot 
or  Map  No. 

Ratio 

Improvements 

Land 

sen  Percy  Street  and  Parsons  Avenue  and 

between  Lincoln  and  Amii 

1 

$6,550 

$6,650 

50:50 

4 

4,500 

6,150 

40:60 

8 

11,400 

13,100 

47:53 

14 

3,700 

3,700 

50:50 

18 

2,700 

2,500 

52:48 

19 

3,750 

5,650 

40:60 

22 

3,050 

3,150 

49:51 

33 

2,800 

2,800 

50:50 

35 

2,200 

2,500 

47:53 

37 

2,100 

2,500 

46:54 

39 

2,100 

2,500 

46:54 

41 

2,200 

2,500 

47:53 

43 

2,100 

2,800 

43:57 

49 

2,600 

3,100 

46:54 

51 

3,050 

2,150 

59:41 

52 

2,300 

2,700 

46:54 

54 

4,700 

3,300 

59:41 

56 

2,350 

1,950 

55:45 

58 

2,350 

1,950 

55:45 

59 

2,650 

1,950 

58:42 

60 

2,050 

1,650 

55:45 

61 

3,500 

2,800 

56:44 

63 

2,000 

2,800 

42:58 

65 

2,100 

2,800 

43:57 

67 

1,750 

1,550 

53:47 

69 

2,750 

1,550 

53:47 

80 

3,950 

3,850 

51:49 

82 

4,900 

3,700 

57:43 

85 

4,000 

3,700 

52:48 

234 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot 

Ratio 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

(Between  Bowne  and  Parsons 

avenues  and  between  Amity  Street  and  Madison  Avenue.) 

1 

$8,300 

$6,200 

57:43 

14 

2,400 

2,800 

46:54 

16 

2,700 

2,800 

49:51 

18 

4,200 

2,800 

53:47 

20 

2,900 

2,800 

51:49 

22 

3,950 

5,550 

42:58 

26 

3,500 

3,300 

68:49 

28 

3,700 

5,500 

40:60 

35 

4,300 

6,700 

39:61 

45 

2,900 

2,700 

52:48 

51 

2,350 

2,650 

47:53 

53 

2,600 

2,600 

50:50 

(Between  Parsons  Avenue  and  Percy  Street  and  between  Madison  Avenue  and  Amity  Street.) 

3 

$2,800 

$2,700 

51:49 

8 

13,100 

12,900 

50:50 

20 

2,225 

1,775 

56:44 

21 

2,425 

1,775 

58:42 

22 

2,800 

3,600 

44:56 

24 

2,800 

1,800 

61:39 

25 

2,400 

1,800 

57:43 

34 

3,100 

2,900 

52:48 

36 

2,550 

2,150 

54:46 

37 

2,650 

2,150 

55:45 

39 

2,650 

2,150 

55:45 

40 

2,700 

2,400 

53:47 

42 

3,600 

3,200 

53:47 

44 

3,900 

4,500 

46:54 

50 

3,700 

4,000 

48:52 

53 

2,450 

2,150 

53:47 

54 

2,500 

2,700 

48:52 

56 

2,300 

2,700 

46:54 

58 

2,500 

2,700 

48:52 

60 

2,500 

2,700 

48:52 

62 

2,500 

2,700 

48:52 

64 

2,950 

4,050 

42:58 

66 

2,950 

4,050 

42:58 

68 

3,000 

2,700 

53:47 

70 

2,950 

4,050 

42:58 

73 

3,450 

4,050 

46:54 

76 

2,300 

2,700 

46:54 

78 

2,300 

2,700 

46:54 

80 

2,300 

2,700 

46:54 

(Between  Bowne  and  Parsons 

avenues  and  between  Madison  Avenue  and  Barclay  Street.) 

13 

$3,000 

$2,800 

52:48 

15 

3,500 

2,800 

56:44 

17 

2,450 

2,250 

52:48 

19 

2,650 

2,250 

54:46 

21 

2,850 

5,050 

36:64 

25 

2,750 

5,050 

35:65 

34 

5,700 

5,300 

52:48 

37 

3,650 

3,350 

52:48 

39 

3,250 

3,350 

49:51 

42 

2,650 

3,350 

44:56 

$274,100  $297,800 


235 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  FOUR,  BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

279— between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Ftdton  Street  and  between  Lefferts  Avenue  and 

Church  Street — ; 
280 — ^between  Fulton  Street  and  Park  Place  and  between  Birch  Street  and  Lefferts 

Avenue — ; 
28l_between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Fulton  Street  and  between  Birch  Street  and 

Lefferts  Avenue — ; 
282 — between  Fulton  Street  and  Atlantic  Avenue  and  between   Spruce  and  Birch 

streets — ; 
784— between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and 

Willett  Street—; 
785— between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Willett  Street  and  Hillside 

Avenue — ; 
786— between  Alsop  and  Roy  streets  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and  Willett  Street;— 

and 
787— between  Alsop  and  Roy  avenues  and  between  WiUett  and  Hillside  avenues.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   38.49:61.51) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ^ ^  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Fulton  Street  and  between  Lefferts  Avenue  and  Church 
Street.) 

48  $1,250  $2,750  31:69 

(Between  Fulton  Street  and  Park  Place  and  between  Birch  Street  and  Lefferts  Avenue.) 
39  $350  $950  27:73 

54  3,000  7,500  29:71 

(Between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Fulton  Street  and  between  Birch  Street  and  Lefferts 
Avenue.) 

31  $3,200  $7,800  29:71 

63  3,000  2,300  37:43 

(Between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and  Willett  Street.) 
29  $1,800  $3,200  36:64 

49  2,100  3,400  38:62 
60                               2,700                           5,000  35:65 

(Between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Willett  Street  and  Hillside  Avenue.) 

1  $1,500  $3,100  33:67 

21  1,700  3,800  31:69 

23  1,500  3,800  27:73 

47  2,000  3,200  38:62 

52  1,800  3,200  36:64 

54  1,800  3,200  36:64 

(Between  Alsop  and  Roy  streets  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and  Willett  Street.) 

1  $3,000  $8,000  27:73 

44  2,500  4,500  36:64 

60  2,500  4,000  38:62 

62  2,500  4,500  36:64 

64  1,900  3,600  35:65 
66  4,200  6,800  38:62 
70  6,000  10,000  ■         38:62 


$50,300  $94,600 

236 


Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ■ •  Ratio 

or  Map  No.            Improvements  Land 
(Between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Fulton  Street  and  between  Lefferts  Avenue  and  Church 
Street.) 

1  $3,200  $3,000  52:48 

7  4,100  3,900  51:49 
10  5,000  2,700  65:35 
12  3,500  2,700  56:44 
14  4,000  3,000  57:43 
16  5,000  6,000  45:55 
21  2,800  3,000  48:52 

23  3,600  3,000  55:45 

25  3,000  3,000  50:50 

27  5,500  3,300  62:38 
31  6,000  3,500  63:37 
34  3,200  2,300  58:42 

36  3,300  2,200  60:40 

38  3,300  2,200  60:40 
40  4,100  2,200  65:35 

42  3,600  2,200  62:38 

44  2,600  2,200  54:46 

46  2,750  2,750  50:50 

50  2,950  2,750  52:48 

(Between  Fulton  Street  and  Park  Place  and  between  Birch  Street  and  Lefferts  Avenue.) 

1  $6,800  $5,700  54:46 

8  2,500  2,000  56:44 
10  4,500  2,300  66:34 
12  4,000  2,000  67:33 
14  4,000  2,000  67:33 
16  2,850  1,750  62:38 

19  2,450  1,550  61:39 

21  2,450  1,550  61:.39 

22  3,050  1,750  64:36 

24  3,050  1,750  64:36 

26  3,050  1,750  64:36 

28  3,050  1,750  64:36 
30  9,000  3,000  75:25 

37  3,100  1,900  62:38 

40  14,000  6,000  70:30 

47  3,100  2,400  57:43 
49  3,100  2,400  57:43 
52  3,000  3,000  50:50 
61  3,900  3,600  52:48 

(Between  Ridgewood  Avenue  and  Fulton  Street  and  between  Birch  Street  and  Lefferts 
Avenue.) 

1  $3,000  $2,000  60:40 

8  2,750  3,750  42:58 

12  2,750  3,750  42:58 

16  2,750  3,750  42:58 

20  2,550  1,750  59:41 
22  2,550  1,750  59:41 
24  4,500  6,500  41:59 
37  3,800  2,200  63:37 

39  2,250  2,250  50:50 

41  3,000  3,000  50:50 

43  2,600  3,000  46:54 

45  4,800  2,700  64:36 
47  3,100  3,300  48:52 
49  3,400  2,700  56:44 

51  3,400  3,600  49:51 

(Between  Fulton  Street  and  Atlantic  Avenue  and  between  Spruce  and  Birch  streets.) 

1  $3,500  $900  80:20 

2  3,500  900  80:20 

3  5,700  1,800  76:24 
5  4,300  2,100  67:33 

237 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Values 


Ward,  Lot 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements                    Land 

Ratio 

^ulton  Street  and  Atlantic  Avenue  and  between  Spruce 

and  Birch  stre 

7 

$4,500                         $1,200 

79:21 

9 

4,500                           1,200 

79:21 

10 

4,500                           1,200 

79:21 

12 

4,500                            1,200 

79:21 

13 

2,600                            1,400 

65:35 

15 

2,800                           2,600 

52:48 

26 

4,000                           1,400 

74:26 

28 

1,000                           1,800 

64:36 

37 

3,250                           1,050 

76:24 

38 

3,500                           1,500 

70:30 

39 

2,700                           3,000 

47:53 

42 

2,700                           2,000 

57:43 

44 

2,800                           2,000 

58:42 

46 

2,000                           1,000 

67:33 

47 

3,800                           2,000 

71:29 

51 

4,550                           3,750 

55:45 

55 

5,250                           2,250 

70:30 

57 

2,500                           2,000 

56:44 

59 

3,050                           1,750 

64:36 

61 

3,050                           1,750 

64:36 

vlyrtle  Avenue 

and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and  Will 

1 

$11,000                         $9,000 

55:45 

7 

3,200                           4,800 

40:60 

11 

1,500                           2,000 

43:57 

13 

2,900                           4,000 

42:58 

16 

2,300                           3,600 

39:61 

19 

3,400                           4,100 

45:55 

22 

4,300                           3,200 

57:43 

24 

2,600                           3,200 

45:55 

27 

3,800                           3,200 

54:46 

32 

4,700                            5,300 

47:53 

36 

2,200                           3,300 

60:40 

42 

3,000                           4,500 

60:40 

46 

3,000                           3,300 

48:52 

51 

3,000                           3,500 

46:54 

54 

4,800                           5,200 

48:52 

58 

2,300                           3,500 

40:60 

(Between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  WiUett  Street  and  Hillside  Avenue.) 

26  $3,850  $1,650  70:30 

27  3,850  1,650  70:30 

28  3,850  1,650  70:30 

29  3,850  1,650  70:30 

30  3,850  1,650  70:30 
44  2,300  3,000  43:57 
49  3,000  3,200  48:52 
57  2,500  3,200  44:56 
59  2,300  3,200  42:58 
62  2,500  3,400  42:58 

(Between  Myrtle  Avenue  and  Alsop  Street  and  between  Willett  Street  and  Hillside  Avenue.) 


31 

$3,850 

$1,650 

70:30 

32 

4,000 

2,000 

67:33 

33 

3,835 

1,465 

72:28 

34 

3,835 

1,465 

72:28 

35 

3,825 

1,375 

74:26 

36 

7,000 

1,000 

41:59 

238 


Group  B  :    Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be  Decreased 


Values 

Ward,  Lot ■ •  Ratio 

or  Map  No.            Improvements  Land 

(Between  Alsop  and  Roy  streets  and  between  Shelton  Avenue  and  Willett  Street.) 

6  12,500  $4,700  35:65 

10  2,500  2,400  51:49 

12  1,900  2,400  44:56 

15  2,300  3,100  43:57 

17  3,100  3,100  50:50 

20  2,600  3,100  46:54 

24  3,700  5,300  41:59 

28  4,200  3,300  56:44 

30  2,100  2,300  48:52 

46  2,800  4,000  41:59 
50  2,700  1,800  60:40 
52  2,700  1,800  60:40 
54  2,700  1,800  60:40 
56  2,700  1,800  60:40 

(Between  Alsop  and  Roy  avenues  and  between  Willett  and  Hillside  avenues.) 

26  $3,200  $3,800  46:54 

28  3,200  3,800  46:54 

31  ■  2,700  3,800  42:58 
34  4,000  3,600  53:47 
37  2,600  2,400  52:48 
39  2,600  2,400  52:48 
41  2,600  2,400  52:48 
43  2,600  2,400  52:48 
45  2,600  2,400  52:48 

47  2,300  2,700  55:45 
50  2,600  2,300  53:47 
52  2,600  2,300  53:47 
54  2,600  2,300  53:47 
56  2,600  2,300  53:47 


$477,755  $370,505 


239 


SAMPLE   DISTRICT   FROM   WARD   FIVE,   BOROUGH  OF  QUEENS 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks:  ,  t--  u.u 

10 ^between   Washington  and  Newport  avenues  and  between  Seventh  and  Eighth 

19 ^between  Central  and  State  avenues  and  between  Cleveland,  Nostrand  and  Roanoke 

3-VGnU.GS — " 

33 ^between  Jerome  and  Stratton  avenues  and  between  Boulevard  and  Atlantic 

Ocean — ;  and  j  t^     i         j  \ 

42 between  Grove  and  Hammels  avenues  and  between  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Boulevard.) 

(Standard  Composite  Ratio:  88.49:61.51) 

Group  A:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' •  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Central  and  State  avenues  and  between  Cleveland,  Nostrand  and  Roanoke  avenues.) 

9                             $1,900                         $3,100  38:62 

11                               1,900                           3,100  38:62 

17                               3,600                           6,000  38:62 

19                               1,000                           7,500  12:88 

22                               2,000                           7,500  21:79 

24                               3,100                           6,400  33:67 

30                                  400                           4,800  8:92 

33                               1,700                           4,800  26:74 

36                               2,200                           4,800  31:69 

39                               2,500                           5,000      •  33:67 

42                               1,500                           8,500  15:85 

56                               1,500                           3,200  32:68 

60                               1,500                           7,000  18:82 

62                               1,500                           5,700  21:79 

78                               3,000                           6,500  32:68 

(Between  Jerome  and  Stratton  avenues  and  between  Boulevard  and  Atlantic  Ocean.) 

3                             $1,000                         $5,000  17:83 

13                               3,200                           5,800  36:64 

67                               3,000                           5,000  38:62 

(Between  Grove  and  Hammels  avenues  and  between  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Boulevard.) 

321                          $1,100                        $1,800  38:62 


$37,600                    $101,500 

Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be 

Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ratio 

Ward,  Lot 

or  Map  No.            Improvements                   Land 

tVashington  and  Newport  avenues  and  between  Seventh  and  Eighth 

1                             $7,200                         $3,800 

65:35 

3                               5,200                           3,300 

61:39 

5                               4,000                           5,000 

44:56 

7                               4,000                           2,000 

67:33 

8                               4,100                           2,000 

67:33 

10                               4,400                           2,000 

69:31 

12                               4,400                           2,000 

69:31 

12^                             3,800                           2,000 

66:34 

19                               3,000                           2,000 

60:40 

20                             3,000                          2,000 

60:40 

24                             4,000                          2,000 

67:33 

27                              3,000                          2,000 

60:40 

28                              4,000                          2,000 

67:33 

29                               5,500                           2,000 

73:27 

33                              4,500                          2,000 

69:31 

34                              5,000                          2,500 

67:33 

36                             3,000                          3,000 

50:50 

45                              3,700                          2,000 

65:35 

47                               6,400                           5,100 

57:33 

52                               3,200                           1,800 

64:36 

54                             2,800                          1,800 

61:39 

66                              5,650                          2,850 

66:34 

240 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot « ,  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Central  and^  State  avenues  and  between  Cleveland,  Nostrand  and  Roanoke 
avenues.) 

1  $2,000  $2,000  50:50 

U  2,200  2,300  49:51 


$98,050  $59,450 

(Between    Central  and  State  avenues  and  between  Cleveland,  Nostrand  and  Roanoke 
avenues.) 

2  $2,200  $3,000  42:58 

4  2,700  3,800  42:58 

7  2,900  3,100  48:52 

12  2,300  3,100  43:57 

13  10,500  7,500  58:42 
50  4,500  3,200  44:56 
52  3,000  3,200  48:52 
54  2,200  3,200  41:59 
75  5,500  6,000  48:52 

(Between  Jerome  and  Stratton  avenues  and  between  Boulevard  and  Atlantic  Ocean.) 

1  $6,000  $4,000  60:40 

25  9,200  5,800  61:39 

28  4,700  5,800  45:55 

32  4,400  5,100  46:54 

35  7,000  5,000  58:42 

38  12,700  7,300  68:32 

41  2,300  3,200  42:58 

45  2,300  3,200  42:58 

52  9,000  9,500  49:51 

5i8  4,100  3,900  51:49 

61  4,500  3,900  54:46 

64  4,600  3,900  54:46 

72  4,500  5,000  47:53 

78  4,800  4,500  52:48 

81  8,750  6,750  56:44 

91  11,000  9,000  55:45 

(Between  Grove  and  Hammels  avenues  and  between  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Boulevard.) 

1  $9,000  $5,000  64:36 

15  1,600  900  64:36 

16  1,600  900  64:36 

17  1,600  900  64:36 

18  2,100  900  67:33 

19  2,100  900  67:33 

20  2,500  1,800  58:42 

21  2,500  1,800  58:42 
21 J  1,900  900  68:32 

22  1,900  900  68:32 
22i  1,650  950  63:27 

23  2,000  1,000  67:33 
231  1,925  975  66:34 

27  1,600  900  64:36 

28  4,600  3,400  58:42 
32  4,400  1,800  71:29 
37  2,400  3,100  44:56 
45  1,700  900  65:35 

57  1,700  700  71:29 
56  1,700  900  65:35 

58  1,400  1,000  58:42 

60  1,400  1,000  58:42 

61  1,800  900  67:33 

62  5,600  4,500  55:45 

68  2,200  900  71:29 

69  2,200  900  71:29 

70  2,200  900  71:29 

241 


GroupIB:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' -—7  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Grove  and  Hammels  avenues  and  between  Atlantic  Ocean  and  Boulevard.)— Con. 

71  $1,600  $700  70:30 

72  1,600  700  70:30 

73  4,600  1,600  74:26 

75  1700  700  71:29 

76  1,700  1,000  63:37 

77  1,700  900  65:35 

$313,775  $226,625 


242 


V.    RICHMOND 

SAMPLE   DISTRICT  FROM   WARD   ONE,   BOROUGH   OF   RICHMOND 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

7_between  Sherman  and  Madison  avenues  and  between  First  and  Fourth  avenues—; 
1 — between  Westervelt  Avenue,  Jersey  Street  and  Seventh  Avenue. — ; 
9A — between  Castleton  Avenue,  Richmond  Turnpike  and  Jersey  Street — ;  and 
4 — between  Dongan  and  Bodine  streets  and  between  Richmond  Terrace  and  Cedar 
Street.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   39.51:60.49) 

Group  A:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ^ —  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Sherman  and  Madison  avenues  and  between  First  and  Fourth  avenues.) 
65  $1,000  $1,600  38:62 

55  600  2,000  23:77 

(Between  Westervelt  Avenue  and  Jersey  Street  and  Seventh  Avenue.) 

310  $350  $550  38.88:61.11 

$1,950  $4,150 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Val 

lues 

Ward,  Lot 

Ratio 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

Sherman  and  Madison  avenues  and  between  First  and  Fourth  avenu 

54 

$6,500 

$2,000 

76:24 

58 

2,000 

800 

71:29 

60 

1,400 

800 

64:36 

61 

1,400 

800 

64:36 

62 

2,200 

800 

73:27 

63 

900 

800 

53:47 

64 

2,200 

800 

73:27 

66 

1,600 

800 

67:33 

69 

3,200 

800 

80:20 

70 

1,400 

800 

64:36 

71 

2,800 

800 

78:22 

72 

2,000 

800 

71:29 

73 

2,400 

800 

75:25 

74 

6,800 

1,600 

79:21 

75 

1,900 

800 

70:30 

77 

2,400 

2,000 

55:45 

78 

1,600 

1,600 

50:50 

82 

3,400 

1,600 

68:32 

83 

2,600 

1,200 

68:32 

85 

2,200 

1,600 

58:42 

86 

3,500 

1,600 

69:31 

89 

2,500 

1,600 

61:39 

90 

3,000 

1,600 

65:35 

93 

3,000 

1,600 

65:35 

94 

5,500 

1,600 

77:23 

97 

2,000 

1,100 

65:35 

98 

2,125 

1,075 

66:34 

99 

2,000 

1,100 

65:35 

100 

2,125 

1,075 

66:34 

101 

2,100 

1,400 

60:40 

102 

2,200 

1,500 

59:41 

243 


Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ^ .  Ratio 

or  Map  No.            Improvements  Land 

(Between  Westervelt  Avenue,  Jersey  Street  and  Seventh  Avenue.) 

1  $1,900  $900  68:32 

2  500  600  45:55 

3  2,800  1,600  64:36 
5  2,500  800  76:24 

7  475  425  53:47 

8  1,575  425  79:21 

9  1,575  425  79:21 
10  1,950  450  81:19 

12  1,350  450  75:25 

13  650  450  59:41 

15  950  450  68:32 

16  1,200  900  57:43 

18  1,225  475  72:28 

19  1,225  475  72:28 

20  1,425  475  75:25 

21  1,525  475  76:24 

298  850  950  47:53 

299  1,550  950  62:38 
301  5,800  2,700  68:32 

307  1,800  500  78:22 

308  900  500  64:36 

309  1,800  1,200  60:40 

312  700  800  47:53 

313  1,100  1,000  52:48 

314  700  1.100  44:56 

(Between  Castleton  Avenue,  Richmond  Turnpike  and  Jersey  Street.) 

1  $1,800  $1,400  56:44 

3  2,000  600  77:23 

5  1,800  600  75:25 

6  1,600  600  73:27 

7  1,000  600  63:37 

8  1,100  1,200  48:52 

10  500  600  45:55 

11  1,300  600  68:32 

12  1,500  600  71:29 

13  1,000  1,400  42:58 

15  5,200  1,500  78:22 

17  2,000  600  77:23 

18  3,000  600  83:17 

19  2,200  600  79:21 

20  4,400  1,200  79:21 

22  3,000  900  77:23 
24  4,000  1,200  77:23 
26  4,150  1,050  80:20 

28  1,050  550  66:34 

29  2,000  600  77:23 
32  1,150  750  61:39 

(Between  Dongan  and  Bodine  streets  and  between  Richmond  Terrace  and  Cedar  Street.) 

1  $3,100  $1,400  69:31 

3  2,800  800  78:22 

5  3,300  800  81:19 

7  3,200  800  80:20 

9  3,000  1,500  67:33 

10  2,100  500  81:19 

11  2,300  500  82:18 

12  2,000  1,000  67:33 

14  3,000  600  83:17 

16  3,100  900           ,  78:22 

17  2,600  1,000  72:28 
19  2,100  500  81:19 

244 


Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' -7  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 
(Between  Dongan  and  Bodine  streets  and  between  Richmond  Terrace  and  Cedar  Street- 
Continued.) 

20  S2,400  $500  83:17 

21  3,150  750  81:19 

23  3,150  750  81:19 

24  3,000  1,000  75:25 

26  1,900  500  79:21 

27  2,800  500  85:15 

28  1,625  475  77:23 

37  3,500  700  83:17 

38  3,300  1,200  73:27 

39  5,500  1,500  79:21 

42  2,300  500  82:18 

43  2,300  500  82:18 

44  2,000  500  80:20 

45  1,820  480  79:21 

46  1,980  520  79:21 

47  3,000  1,000  75:25 

49  1,800  500  78:22 

50  1,800  500  78:22 

51  1,600  500  77:23 

52  3,200  1,000  76:24 

54  1,800  500  78:22 

55  1,800  500  78:22 

56  1,800  500  78:22 

$254,850  $100,145 


245 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  TWO,  BOROUGH  OF  RICHMOND 

(The  district  consists  of  blocks  between 

Broad  and  McKeon  streets  and  between  Brownell  and  Quinn  streets; 
Richmond  Road  and  Targee  Street  and  between  Broad  and  Chestnut  streets; 
Richmond  Road  and  Cebra  Avenue  and  between  Stone  and  Beach  streets;  and 
Bertha  Place  and  Duncan  Avenue  and  between  Eddy  and  Theresa  streets.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:    39.51:60.49) 
Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot  • • 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land  Ratio 

(Between   Richmond   Road  and  Targee  Street  and  between  Broad  and  Chestnut  streets. 
144  $1,800  $3,200  36:64 

(Between  Richmond  Road  and  Cebra  Avenue  and  between  Stone  and  Beach  streets.) 
191  $3,500  $7,500  32:68 


$5,300 

$10,700 

Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be 

Decreased 

Assessed 

Values 

Wnrd    T  nt 

or  Map  No.            Improvements 

Land 

Ratio 

sen  Broad  and  McKeon  streets  and  between  Brownell  and  Quinn  st 

124                             $1,900 

$600 

76:24 

211                               2,100 

900 

67:33 

211A                            1,000 

500 

67:33 

212                               1,700 

800 

68:32 

213                               1,700 

800 

68:32 

214                               2,000 

,     800 

71:29 

215                                2,600 

800 

77:23 

216                                1,800 

800 

69:31 

217                                1,000 

800 

56:44 

218                                1,700 

800 

68:32 

219                               2,000 

800 

71:29 

220                               2,200 

800 

73:27 

221                                1,200 

800 

60:40 

224                                1,900 

900 

68:32 

225                                   800 

900 

47:53 

226                                1,900 

900 

68:32 

227                                   900 

900 

50:50 

228                              1,700 

900 

65:35 

229                                 900 

900 

50:50 

230                               2,800 

900 

76:24 

231                                4,200 

1,800 

67:33 

233                                2,500 

2,800 

47:53 

235                               2,300 

1,200 

66:34 

236                               3,600 

1,200 

75:25 

237                                1,600 

1,200 

57:43 

238                                1,800 

1,200 

60:40 

239                                1,600 

1,200 

57:43 

242                               2,600 

1,200 

68:32 

243                               4,300 

1,200 

78:22 

244                               1,100 

1,200 

48:52 

245                                1,300 

1,200 

45:55 

246                                1,300 

1,200 

52:48 

247                                1,300 

1,200 

52:48 

248                               4,000 

1,200 

77:23 

249                                3,100 

1,200 

72:28 

250                                1,400 

1,400 

50:50 

251                                4,100 

2,400 

63:37 

253                                   800 

1,200 

40:60 

254                                  800 

1,200 

40:60 

255                                1,000 

1,200 

45:55 

256                               6,100 

2,400 

72:28 

258                              1,600 

1,200 

57:43 

259                               4,200 

1,300 

76:24 

246 


Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot 

Ratio 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

Richmond  Road 

and  Targee  Street  and  between  Broad  and 

Chestnu 

134 

$3,200 

$900 

78:22 

136 

1,700 

1,100 

61:39 

142 

1,300 

900 

59:41 

228 

1,200 

600 

67:33 

229 

3,000 

1,200 

71:29 

231 

1,200 

600 

67:33 

232 

700 

600 

54:46 

233 

1,300 

600 

68:32 

234 

1,300 

600 

68:32 

235 

1,100 

900 

55:45 

236 

1,900 

1,200 

40:60 

236A 

1,000 

300 

85:15 

236B 

800 

400 

67:33 

238 

500 

67:33 

239 

500 

79:21 

240 

1,400 

600 

67:33 

241 

900 

600 

60:40 

242 

800 

700 

53:47 

243 

3,300 

1,500 

69:31 

n  Richmond  Road  and  Cebra  Avenue  and  between  Stone  and  Beach 

115 

$2,300 

$2,200 

51:49 

117 

3,100 

1,400 

69:31 

118 

2,900 

1,600 

64:36 

119 

2,900 

1,600 

64:36 

120 

6,200 

3,800 

62:38 

122 

9,200 

4,800 

66:34 

126 

19,000 

8,000 

70:30 

130 

3,500 

3,000 

54:46 

132 

6,000 

3,000 

67:33 

137 

3,900 

4,700 

45:55 

138 

2,500 

2,500 

50:50 

190 

8,100 

1,900 

81:19 

190A 

17,000 

5,000 

77:23 

192 

5,000 

3,500 

59:41 

193 

5,500 

4,000 

58:42 

194 

1,800 

1,400 

56:44 

195 

1,800 

1,000 

64:36 

196 

2,500 

2,000 

56:44 

198 

8,000 

3,000 

73:27 

201 

2,100 

2,100 

50:50 

203 

3,700 

1,800 

67:33 

205A 

1,850 

350 

84:16 

205B 

6,100 

900 

87:13 

206 

5,500 

4,000 

58:42 

209 

2,800 

3,000 

48:52 

211 

5,500 

3,000 

65:35 

274 

1,700 

500 

77:23 

275 

2,000 

600 

77:23 

276 

2,200 

600 

78:22 

277 

2,000 

500 

80:20 

278 

2,100 

500 

81:19 

(Between  Bertha  Place  and  Duncan  Avenue  and  between  Eddy  and  Theresa  streets) 

16  $1,800  $800  69:31 

17  1,800  800  69:31 
19  1,700  800  68:32 

104  3,200  1,800  64:36 

107  4,500  1,000  82:18 

112  3,800  1,200  76:24 

129  2,200  600  79:21 

131  2,400  600  80:20 

133  2,300  300  88:12 

134  2,600  600  81:19 


$296,850  $155,550 

247 


SAMPLE    DISTRICT  FROM   WARD   THREE,   BOROUGH   OF  RICHMOND 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

23 — between  Simonson  Place  and  Heberton  Avenue  and  between  Anderson  Avenue 

and  Grace  Church  Place — ; 
24 — between  Simonson  and  Washington  places  and   between  Post  and  Anderson 

avenues — ; 
25 — ^between  Heberton  Avenue  and  Washington  Place  and  between  Anderson  Avenue 

and  Albion  Place — ; 
47 — between  Nicholas  and  Lafayette  avenues  and   between   Harrison   Avenue  and 

Slaight  Street — ;  and 
159 — ^between  Sherman  Street  and  LaFarge  Avenue  and  between  LaFarge  Place  and 

Richmond  Avenue.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:  89.51:60.49) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ■ .  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Simonson  Place  and  Heberton  Avenue  and  between  Anderson  Avenue  and  Grace 
Church  Place.) 

787  $1,000  $3,000  25:75 

805  2,000  4,000  33:67 

827  800  1,400  36:64 


$3,800  $8,400 


Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

TRT^^A      T  ^-1- 

Ratio 

or  Map  No.            Improvements 

Land 

)imonson  Place  and  Heberton  Avenue  and  between  Anderson 

Avenue 

ti  Place.) 

791                             $1,400 

$2,800 

46:54 

795                               2,650 

350 

88:12 

796                               2,200 

800 

73:27 

797                               2,200 

800 

73:27 

798                               1,400 

1,400 

50:50 

800                               2,500 

800 

76:24 

802                               2,500 

800 

76:24 

803                               3,700 

800 

82:18 

807                               4,000 

2,500 

62:38 

809                               3,100 

2,400 

56:44 

811                               3,200 

1,800 

64:36 

813                               5,000 

2,500 

67:33 

814                               2,600 

1,400 

65:35 

816                               4,550 

1,950 

70:30 

819                               2,525 

875 

74:26 

820                               3,300 

700 

83:17 

824                               2,050 

1,050 

66:34 

826                               1,675 

925 

64:36 

829                               2,500 

1,200 

56:44 

830                               1,600 

1,600 

50:50 

832                               6,600 

1,400 

83:17 

834                               1,000 

800 

56:44 

836                               3,200 

1,000 

76:24 

838                               1,200 

500 

71:29 

839                               1,500 

500 

75:25 

840                               2,500 

500 

83:17 

841                               3,100 

800 

73:27 

248 


Group  B  :     Parcels  Whose  Taxe 

s  Would  Be  Decree 

^.SED 

Assessed  Values 

Ratio 

or  Map  No.            Improvements 

Land 

Simonson  and  Washington  places  and 

between  Post  and  i 

\nderson 

844                             SI, 500 

$1,000 

60:40 

846                                1,800 

1,000 

44:56 

848                                  900 

500 

64:36 

849                                1,200 

500 

71:29 

851                                   500 

1,000 

33:67 

853                                 650 

850 

43:57 

854                                 700 

500 

58:42 

861                              4,000 

2,500 

62:38 

867                              2,800 

500 

85:15 

868                              2,800 

500 

85:15 

869                              2,000 

2,000 

50:50 

874                                1,400 

800 

64:36 

876                               2,550 

850 

75:25 

877                              1,800 

1,200 

60:40 

(Between  Heberton  Avenue  and  Washington  Place   and    between  Anderson  Avenue  and 
Albion  Place.) 


879 

$3,000 

$1,400 

68:32 

881 

3,000 

1,000 

75:25 

882 

2,950 

1,050 

74:26 

885 

2,000 

1,000 

67:33 

887 

1,950 

1,050 

65:35 

888 

1,950 

1,150 

63:37 

890 

2,000 

1,400 

59:41 

891 

1,800 

1,200 

60:40 

893 

1,650 

1,050 

61:39 

894 

3,300 

3,500 

49:51 

899 

3,025 

1,175 

72:28 

901 

2,925 

1,075 

73:27 

903 

3,950 

1,050 

79:21 

904 

3,800 

3,200 

54:46 

907 

3,625 

2,875 

56:44 

909 

3,100 

2,400 

56:44 

911 

3,500 

4,500 

44:56 

(Between   Nicholas  and  Lafayette  avenues  and  between   Harrison  Avenue  and  Slaight 
Street.) 


594 

$2,500 

$1,000 

71:29 

595 

3,000 

800 

79:21 

596 

2,000 

800 

71:29 

598 

2,000 

600 

77:23 

599 

2,800 

1,200 

70:30 

601 

1,900 

600 

76:24 

602 

2,200 

600 

79:21 

603 

2,200 

600 

79:21 

604 

1,900 

600 

76:24 

605 

2,000 

600 

77:23 

606 

2,300 

700 

77:23 

610 

2,500 

1,000 

71:29 

612 

1,400 

800 

64:36 

614 

6,900 

1,400 

83:17 

616 

1,500 

600 

71:29 

617 

1,400 

400 

78:22 

619 

1,600 

400 

80:20 

620 

1,400 

400 

78:22 

621 

1,400 

400 

78:22 

622 

1,000 

800 

56:44 

624 

2,400 

1,100 

69:31 

626 

1,200 

800 

60:40 

249 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 


Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot 

Ratio 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements                   Land 

Sherman  Street 
lue.) 

1 

and  LaFarge  Avenue  and  between  LaFarge 

Place  and 

$2,400                            $600 

80:20 

3 

1,100                              300 

79:21 

4 

1,200                              300 

80:20 

5 

1,250                              250 

83:17 

6 

1,200                              400 

75:25 

9 

1,325                              475 

74:26 

10 

1,350                              250 

84:16 

11 

1,350                              250 

84:16 

12 

1,300                              500 

72:28 

14 

1,150                              250 

82:18 

15 

950                              250 

79:21 

16 

4,100                             400 

89:11 

17 

1,400                              300 

82:18 

18 

1,400                              600 

70:30 

20 

1,400                              600 

70:30 

22 

1,400                              300 

82:18 

23 

2,600                              400 

87:13 

24 

1,200                              500 

71:29 

26 

3,000                           1,500 

67:33 

31 

1,050                              450 

70:30 

33 

950                              250 

79:21 

34 

1,650                              350 

83:17 

$231,855  $110,800 


250 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  FOUR,  BOROUGH  OF  RICHMOND 
(The  district  consists  of  blocks 

Between  Townsend  and  Norwood  avenues  and  between  Bay  and  Centre  Streets;  and 
Between  Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  and  Ormond  Place  and  between  Butler 
Place  and  Chestnut  Avenue.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:   39.51:60.49) 

Group  A:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Increased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot  • ' s  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  Townsend  and  Norwood  avenues  and  between  Bay  and  Centre  streets.) 

100  $3,100  $5,400  36:64 

(Between  Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  and  Ormond  Place  and  between  Butler 
Place  and  Chestnut  Avenue.) 

114  $900  $2,100  30:70 


$4,000  $7,500 

Group  B:   Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 
Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 
(Between  Townsend  and  Norwood  avenues  and  between  Bay  and  Centre  streets.) 

79  $3,800  $2,600  59:41 

82  3,050  1,250  71:29 

84  2,550  1,250  67:33 

89  900  900  50:50 

90  900  900  50:50 

91  3,600  2,400  60:40 
104  4,100  2,400  63:37 
108  3,200  2,400  57:43 
110  3,200  1,200  65:35 

112  2,550  1,150  69:31 

113  2,700  1,100  71:29 

115  1,625  1,375  54:46 

116  2,850  1,650  63:37 
118  1,400  900  61:39 

120  2,300  950  71:29 

121  4,500  2,000  69:31 

127  1,800  600  75:25 

128  1,900  600  76:24 

129  3,800  1,200  76:24 
129a  1,300  300  81:19 

(Between  Staten  Island  Rapid  Transit  Railroad  and  Ormond  Place  and  between  Butler 
Place  and  Chestnut  Avenue.) 

126  $5,500  $1,500  79:21 

131  1,500  500  75:25 

395  5,250  1,750  75:25 

406  1,200  600  67:33 

418  1,275  225  85:15 

424  5,100  900  85:15 

430  900  200  82:18 

440  1,250  250  83:17 

442  1,150  250  82:18 

444  1,150  250  82:18 

446  2,300  500  82:18 

450  1,250  250  83:17 

452  1,150  250  82:18 

454  1,150  250  82:18 

456  1,250  250  83:17 

458  1,250  250  83:17 

460  1,050  450  70:30 

464  5,550  450  93:7 

471  8,750  2,250  80:20 


$100,000         $38,450 


251 


SAMPLE  DISTRICT  FROM  WARD  FIVE,  BOROUGH  OF  RICHMOND 

(The  district  consists  of  assessment  blocks: 

14 — ^between  Amboy  Road  and  Eureka  Place  and  between  Butler  Avenue  and  Bentley 

Street — ; 
21 — between  E.  Broadway  and  Amboy  Road  and  between  Johnson  Avenue  and  WiUiam 

Street — ;  and 
25 — between  Wood  and  Fisher  avenues  and  between  E.  Broadway  and  Amboy  Road.) 

{Standard  Composite  Ratio:  39.51:60.49) 

Group  A:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Woxjld  be  Increased 
Assessed  Values 


Ward.  Lot 


or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land  Ratio 

(Between  Amboy  Road  and  Eureka  Place  and  between  Butler  Avenue  and  Bentley  Street) 
4  $1,025  $1,575  39:61 

(Between  E.  Broadway  and  Amboy  Road  and  between  Johnson  Avenue  and  William  Street.) 
3  $450  $850  35:65 

38  700  1,100  39:61 


$2,175  $3,525 

Group  B:  Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  be  Decreased 

Ratio 


58:42 
72:28 
48:52 
85:15 
78:22 
74:26 
74:26 
68:32 
68:32 
63:37 
65:35 
70:30 
58:42 
62:38 
56:44 
62:38 


60:40 
61:39 
60:40 
58:42 
78:22 
75:25 
68:32 
72:28 
71:29 
66:34 
68:32 
41:59 
56:44 
82:18 
50:50 
41:59 
77:23 


Ward,  Lot 

Assessed  Values 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

^mboy  Road  and  Eureka  Place  and  between  Butler  . 

1 

$1,900 

$1,400 

7 

2,450 

950 

9 

1,000 

1,100 

12 

3,150 

550 

13 

1,800 

500 

16 

1,650 

550 

18 

1,600 

550 

20 

1,150 

550 

22 

1,500 

700 

24 

1,200 

700 

26 

1,300 

700 

34 

1,950 

850 

36 

1,725 

1,275 

39 

1,875 

1,125 

42 

1,625 

1,275 

45 

1,600 

1,000 

5.  Broadway  and  Amboy  Road  and  between  Johnsor 

6 

2,400 

1,600 

9 

1,900 

1,200 

11 

2,500 

1,700 

14 

1,500 

1,100 

16 

7,550 

2,150 

20 

2,025 

675 

22 

1,700 

800 

24 

1,300 

500 

25 

1,500 

600 

27 

1,725 

875 

30 

1,825 

875 

33 

600 

875 

36 

950 

750 

41 

5,600 

1,200 

47 

900 

900 

51 

775 

1,125 

55 

2,000 

600 

252 


Group  B:     Parcels  Whose  Taxes  Would  Be  Decreased 

Assessed  Values 

Ward,  Lot ' ■  Ratio 

or  Map  No.  Improvements  Land 

(Between  E.  Broadway  and  Amboy  Road  and  between  Johnson  Avenue  and  William 
Street.) — Continued. 


57 

$1,100 

$700 

56:44 

59 

1,300 

700 

65:35 

61 

1,800 

700 

72:28 

63 

900 

600 

60:40 

65 

1,800 

600 

68:32 

67 

1,000 

600 

63:37 

69 

1,450 

675 

69:31 

71 

1,525 

1,075 

59:41 

74 

1,075 

425 

72:28 

76 

1,125 

775 

59:41 

79 

700 

300 

70:30 

81 

3,100 

1,700 

65:.35 

85 

2,075 

2,125 

49:51 

90 

12,925 

5,175 

79:21 

102 

1,300 

1,100 

54:46 

105 

2,000 

1,100 

65:35 

108 

1,700 

1,100 

61:39 

HI 

2,300 

1,100 

68:32 

114 

2,500 

1,100 

69:31 

117 

2,600 

1,100 

70:30 

120 

1,675 

825 

67:33 

122 

2,400 

1,000 

71:29 

124 

2,576 

825 

76:24 

126 

1,900 

2,900 

40:60 

135 

2,950 

950 

76:24 

137 

1,600 

1,200 

57:43 

140 

2,000 

1,200 

63:37 

143 

1,500 

1,200 

56:44 

146 

1,500 

1,200 

56:44 

149 

1,300 

1,800 

42:58 

170 

5,600 

800 

87:13 

185 

1,200 

300 

80:20 

Vood  and  Fisher 

Avenues  and 

between  E.  Broadway 

and  Amboj 

1 

$2,200 

$1,200 

65:35 

5 

2,175 

725 

75:25 

7 

3,450 

1,350 

72:28 

10 

1,525 

675 

69:31 

12 

1,175 

1,225 

49:51 

15 

1,100 

700 

61:39 

17 

1,500 

1,000 

60:40 

20 

2,700 

1,000 

73:27 

22 

3,850 

1,150 

77:23 

26 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

28 

1,700 

600 

74:26 

29 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

30 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

32 

1,700 

600 

74:26 

33 

1,900 

600 

76:24 

36 

2,350 

1,150 

67:33 

38 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

39 

3,425 

475 

88:12 

41 

1,625 

475 

77:23 

42 

2,550 

1,150 

69:31 

45 

1,425 

675 

68:32 

54 

2,075 

1,225 

63:37 

56 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

58 

1,400 

600 

70:30 

60 

2,075 

725 

74:26 

62 

1,900 

700 

73:27 

64 

1,900 

700 

73:27 

66 

1,600 

700 

70:30 

253 


Group  B: 

Parcels  Whose  T 

AXES  Would  Be  Decree 

^SED 

Assessed 

Values 

Ward,  Lot 

Ratio 

or  Map  No. 

Improvements 

Land 

i/'ood  and  Fisher  avenues  and  between  E.  Broadway  and  Amboy 

Road— 

73 

$1,900 

$600 

76:24 

75 

2,400 

600 

80:20 

85 

1,200 

1,800 

40:60 

87 

1,550 

750 

67:33 

89 

2,275 

825 

73:27 

94 

1,725 

775 

69:31 

96 

1,725 

575 

75:25 

98 

2,150 

650 

77:23 

100 

1,825 

975 

65:35 

103 

1,725 

1,675 

51:49 

108 

1,325 

775 

63:37 

110 

1,050 

650 

62:38 

112 

1,925 

675 

64:36 

114 

1,150 

650 

64:36 

116 

2,425 

675 

78:22 

118 

1,850 

1,050 

64:36 

121 

2,700 

1,000 

63:37 

125 

2,075 

925 

69:31 

126 

3,425 

675 

84:16 

130 

4,525 

675 

87:13 

132 

2,750 

650 

81:19 

134 

1,475 

725 

67:33 

138 

1,625 

675 

71:29 

142 

2,525 

675 

79:21 

144 

2,150 

650 

77:23 

146 

1,650 

650 

72:28 

$241,600 

$111,650 

Continued) 


254 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL    FINE      OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


aAN  23  1933 

SEP    23  1933 

NOV  19  t933 


T 


APR    211923 


May  ft  ^'isi 


RIVERSIDE 
INTERLIBRARY  LOAN 


LI)  21-50m-8,-3i 


YD  01447 


/  'K 


/ 


I 


